Sitting of 6 August 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],—King's Consent signified.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Pembroke Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Bill,
Read a second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.
Water Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to West Hampshire Water," presented by MR. BEIDGEMAN.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time.
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed—[Bill 168.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  INDIA.

    ARMY COMMISSION.
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Army Commission will inquire into the grievances of the Indian section of the. Army and of Indians generally with regard to the military policy of the Government; why no Indian is appointed a member of the Commission; whether the omission will be made good before the Commission commence their work; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the strength of the Indian feeling against Sir Michael O'Dwyer for his recent administrative acts in the Punjab; and why he has been appointed a member in the face of such feeling?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Under the terms of reference the Committee is concerned with general questions of military administration and organisation, not with grievances; but I am considering the appointment of an Indian member. I do not see that recent administrative acts in the Punjab have any bearing on this inquiry.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India why no Indian has been appointed on Lord Esher's Committee on the Indian Army?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The appointment of an Indian to the Committee on the Army in India is under consideration.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the taking of evidence from Indian officers now at Hampton Court, as there are some there who could give most valuable evidence before the Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am obliged for the suggestion, and will communicate it to the Chairman of the Committee.

    PUNJAB COMMISSION.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the names of the members of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent events in the Punjab; and whether

    331
    he will undertake to select as chairman of such a Commission a Member of either House of Parliament?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am in communication with the Government of India as to the inquiry. I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Before the House rises for the Recess?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope so.

    CURRENCY.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for India whether the amount of silver obtainable from abroad by the Indian. Government at the present time is sufficient for her requirements and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to ascertaining whether the old rights of the natives to exchange their ornaments against rupees, weight for weight, can in any way be restored so that the Indian Government, in the event of a good export season, may be placed in a position to avail of the large reserves of silver at present on the spot in India in the shape of native ornaments, as was formerly the case?
    Mr. MONTAGU: India could do with more silver. The question of an offer by the Government of India to receive salver from private persons will, I understand, be submitted to the Indian Currency Committee.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that a higher price in sterling is now obtainable in America for sales of gold than is obtain able in this country; whether India is contemplating putting up the price she is prepared to pay for imported gold, and, if so, by how much; and whether the pre sent Currency Committee can be empowered to extend its inquiries to consider the problem of currency as a whole, in stead of approaching the question from a purely local point of view?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not fully in-formed as to sales of gold for sterling in America. The second part of the question asks for a statement on a matter on which action, if taken at all, would necessarily be taken without previous announcement. The Chairman of the Indian Currency Committee informs me that, in his opinion and that of his colleagues, so far as it is
    332
    possible to see at present, the terms of reference as they stand give all the scope necessary for conducting the inquiry and. for making recommendations.
    Mr. STEWART: Will the evidence put before the Committee be published in the ordinary course as a Parliamentary Paper?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice. I think so, but I would rather confirm that by reference.

    PATEL HINDU INTERCASTE MAERIAGE BILL.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the introduction of the Patel Hindu Inter caste Marriage Bill in the Indian Legislative Council and its circulation by the Government of India through local Governments for opinion has caused great alarm amongst orthodox Hindus of all classes of society in India, as am interference with their most sacred religious and social usages which it has been the policy of the British Government hitherto never to interfere with; and will he ascertain from the Government of India whether it would be desirable to take action to reassure orthodox Hindu opinion that no interference with religious usage is contemplated by the British Governments?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There would seem to be some misapprehension in the matter. The Government of India is not responsible for the Bill, which was introduced by an elected member of the Legislative Council. The Government are in no way committed to support it, but as it received a certain amount of support from the unofficial members they have taken steps to obtain the full opinion of the Hindu community before the Bill is further proceeded with.
    Colonel YATE: Will the Government of India leave it to the unofficial members of the Indian Legislative to carry through this Bill and not push it on the part of the Government?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India will have to make up its mind about this Bill if it ever comes to the point at which a Bill comes up for sanction or veto, and for that purpose it is necessary that the Government of India should be fully informed, but it will be treated as private Member's Bill and unofficial.

    HOSPITAL ARRANGEMENTS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the amelioration of the hospital arrangements for the sick and wounded in the operations on the North-West Frontier of India; whether he is aware that one officers' hospital was so badly equipped that the patients had to use their shaving mugs as drinking cups and tumblers; that no casualty lists were issued for more than a month subsequent to 17th May; and even wives were not officially informed of their husbands' deaths and were left to hear of it from other sources?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the very full statement which I have made in answer to another question of his. The second part is covered by the request which I have already addressed to the Government of India for a report on the hospital referred to. It is not the case, so far as I am aware, that no casualty lists were published for more than a month subsequent to 17th May. Reports of casualties are communicated to the War Office as they are received by the India Office, and are published by the former. Apart from publication, reports of casualties are immediately communicated by the India Office to the next-of-kin in all cases in which the names of the next-of-kin have been registered. If the hon. and gallant Member will inform me what are the cases to which he refers in the last part of his question, I will have inquiry made.
    Colonel YATE: I refer to the publication by the Government of India. I would ask, with regard to the statement in yester day's full statement which is referred to that the scale of equipment of Indian general hospitals has been reviewed and that arrangements for providing additional equipment are in progress, does not that show that the shortage brought to light by the Mesopotamia Commission has not yet been remedied in India and that the pernicious Report of Lord Nicholson and Sir William Meyer which caused Lord Crewe to limit the expenditure on the Indian Army to £19,500,000 is still operating and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is making an argumentative speech.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will permit members of his Council who are not committed to the Government of India Bill as it stands to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know to what members of my Council my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I have decided some months ago, with the assent of my Council, that any member thereof who wished to give evidence before the Joint Committee on his own behalf should offer to do so. The decision as to what evidence they will admit or require rests with the Committee alone.
    Colonel YATE: As I believe the right hon. Gentleman nominates the members who are to give evidence before the Committee, will he say how many members of his Council he has nominated; and, as the members he has nominated are presumably in conformity with his views, will he nominate an equal number of those oppised to his views?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite mistaken. I do not nominate the members. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dominate!"] I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member does not mean that. [Hon. MEMBERS: "He said 'nominate!'"] The Committee know that the members of the Council of India are willing to give any information and any evidence they may be asked to give. I do not know whether any of them have applied to the Committee to give evidence.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman given the names of any members of the Council to the President of the Select Committee?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have given the names of all my Council. In this regard I have said that the Council is free to give evidence, or any member of it, and they would presumably be summoned by the Committee.

    AFGHANISTAN (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India when the full text of the communications from the Amir of Afghanistan and of the Viceroy's replies will be published; and if he can make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the Afghan delegation at the Peace Conference now being carried on at

    335
    Rawal Pindi, and as to the reasons that prompted the Government of India to grant an armistice instead of imposing their own conditions of peace?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am anxious to give the House all the information I can, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, I am sure, agree that while negotiations are in progress, at Rawal Pindi, it is not opportune to discuss the matter. I had hoped to lay Papers before now, but I would propose to wait till I can include the result of the negotiations.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the British Government and the Government of India are going to stand the offensive replies given by the Afghan delegates to Sir Hamilton Grant at Rawal Pindi, and will they not put the foot down, and say, "Those are our terms, and we are going to enforce them"?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Does my lion. Friend think that in putting that question, and much more the answering of it, would help successful negotiations?
    Colonel YATE: Yes. I do.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MOTOR LAUNCHES (DISPOSAL).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are, some 300 of His Majesty's motor launches moored in the River Hamble; if he will state the original cost, and the present expenditure per week for the maintenance, of a motor launch; whether any motor launches have been refitted with a view to sale; if so, at what cost; and can he state the policy of the Government with regard to the future retention or disposal of the motor launches in the River Hamble?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Of the 300 craft referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, 210 are motor launches. of which 187 are for disposal. The original cost of these motor launches was about £8,000 each.
    The present expenditure for the maintenance of one of these vessels is, roughly, £2 a week, including wages, stores, and the cost of three motor launches in commission for attendance on those paid off.
    336
    A Committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir W. H. May, including representatives of Admiralty Technical Departments and out-Bide experts, to advise on the best method of sale. Up to date 44 of these launches have been sold.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is there any hope of disposing of the 187 motor launches in a short space of time, and, if not, would not the most economical thing to do be to scrap them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are taking steps to offer them for sale. A Committee is at work to that end; failing that, I will place before it my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the Committee report shortly?
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can my right hon. Friend say what price?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. As we have 187 to dispose of, I am sure my hon. Friend will see that it would not be expedient to give an answer to that.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: Could they be disposed of by private treaty?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he aware that these motor launches were a complete failure in war-time, and, that being the case, will he consider the advisability of disposing of the whole lot?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said that 187 were for disposal, and I am not prepared to concur that they were a complete, failure. In any case, it is not a wise thing to say when we are trying to sell them, and it is not correct.

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS (DEMOBILISATION).
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many temporary officers of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are still mobilised and on active service; and by what date is it expected that their demobilisation will be completed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: 2,906 Royal Naval Reserve officers and 676 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers are still mobilised and on active service. It is not possible to forecast with any accuracy the date when the services which necessitate the employment of Royal Naval Reserve

    337
    and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers will finally cease, but it is anticipated that their demobilisation will be completed by the end of the year. I may add that up to date 7,540 Royal Naval Reserve officers and 4,586 Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers have been demobilised.

    WOMEN'S ROYAL NAVAL SERVICE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to retain the Women's Royal Naval Service organisation and incorporate it in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA:No alteration has been made in the decision already announced to demobilise the Women's Royal Naval Service on 1st October, 1919. A recent proposal by the Director, Women's Royal Naval Service, to institute a Women's Royal Naval Service Reserve is now being considered.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty can announce the conditions of service in Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is still under consideration.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (MERCHANT SHIP REPAIRS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if all the Royal yards are engaged in repairing warships; and whether such yards could be utilised for the repair of merchant ships, which are so urgently required for the carrying trade of the country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal dockyards are at present engaged in refitting and repairing warships and the necessary auxiliary yard craft, with the following exceptions: There is a small amount of new construction in hand, while one British merchant vessel and two vessels belonging to the United States are in hand for repair. Recently arrangements have been made to deal with the refits of many oilers which, up to the present, have been carried out by private firms, and at the present time four of these Teasels are in hand for refit, etc., in addition to a German cable ship, which is
    338
    being surveyed for return to the Eastern Telegraph Company. My right hon. Friend will realise from what I have just stated that the Royal dockyards can be utilised to a certain extent for the repair of merchant vessels, but I would point out to him that the ruling factor is the supply of the men of the necessary trades, which, at present, is not equal to the demand, either in private firms or in the dockyards themselves.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Why is it that the Royal dockyards are not used for repairing merchant ships when food-carrying ships are far more important than warships at the present time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I told my right hon. Friend that the Royal dockyards are fully employed at the present time, and they are engaged upon one merchant ship, as I told him. The shortage of shipwrights and of joiners particularly, not only in the Royal Dockyards, but in the private firms as well, is the difficulty. We have not got them.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are any warships at present being repaired in private yards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then may I ask him whether it would not be possible, in view of the excellent naval situation, to knock off all repairing of warships, except as regards safety from sinking, and put all the workmen, as an emergency after-war measure, on to mercantile repairing?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): That question, obviously, affects the whole policy of the British Admiralty and the Government. I have said what that policy was on two previous occasions in this House. The suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are, of course, being considered by the Admiralty, but to suggest that no repairs of warships, no necessary repairs, and that none of the ravages of war should be made right now is an impossible suggestion.
    Sir W. RAEBURN:Is it not the case that a large number of these ships that are being repaired in the yards in this country are being detained and hindered by constant strikes and trade union rules?

    WELFARE COMMITTEE
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the nature, scope, limitations, and composition of personnel of the Welfare Committee about to be set up by the Admiralty for dealing with questions affecting all naval ratings; is it the intention to invest this Committee with full advisory powers on all matters affecting lower-deck affairs; and is it to be understood that any points advanced by any one section of the various ratings are to be discussed and adjudicated upon by all the lower-deck representatives sitting together as One body?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is contained in a printed Admiralty Order, dated 24th February, 1919, of which I am sending him a copy. It is intended that the first meeting of the Committee shall take place in October, 1919, and detailed instructions concerning it are now in course of preparation.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Who is then to be in charge of this Department, and to what Department will the Welfare Committee make their representations?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: To the Personnel Committee at the centre. The elections, as I have said, will be made in the freest possible manner.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume the Committee will elect their own chairman or whether a naval officer will be appointed by the Board of Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that question offhand. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question on the Paper.

  RUSSIA.

    HOSPITAL CARRIERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the fact that six hospital carriers have been sent to North Russia for service on the River Dwina which cannot ascend that river owing to their excessive draught; whether, in consequence, the arrangements for transporting wounded may be insufficient should heavy casualties be inflicted on our forces; and whether all possible steps are being taken to send out smaller carriers for wounded with all dispatch?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The six hospital carriers referred to are six paddle-steamers which were fitted out temporarily owing to the unavoidable delay on passage from Mesopotamia of vessels of smaller draught. They were the shallowest draught craft available at the time, and, but for the abnomally low river, would have been entirely suitable for the service. I am advised that adequate craft are now available at Archangel, and, should more be required, others are on their way.

    MECHANICIANS (MESSING).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the order sanctioning the messing of mechanicians in engine-room artificers' messes will be rescinded, seeing that a pledge was given that this order was only for the duration of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The order in question will be cancelled at an early date.

  COAL SUPPLY.

    NAVAL MEN (EMPLOYMENT IN MINES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what extra pay and allowances will be paid to the naval officers and ratings sent to the mines in connection with the mining strike; and by whom will the expenses incurred be borne?
    Mr. LONG: These officers and men will receive extra pay at double the rates laid, down in the Regulations whilst employed in connection with the mining strike. The question of incidence of charge is not yet settled.

    NAVAL CONSUMPTION.
    Mr. HARTSHORNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say what quantity of coal is at present consumed by the British and Allied Navies; and what was the quantity used by those Navies before the War?
    Mr. LONG: It is regretted that information as to the quantity of coal consumed by the Allied Navies at present and before the War is not available. In the case of our own ships, it is not usual to publish figures. I assume, however, that my hon. Friend's desire is to obtain information as to relative expenditure during the two periods, and I am able to inform him that the British pre-war expenditure will certainly not be exceeded when later in the

    341
    year salvage and mine-sweeping operations have been completed. My hon. Friend will realise that these necessary services occasion an appreciable temporary increase in expenditure.

    DISTRIBUTION IN LONDON AND PROVINCES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Lord Privy Seal in what quantities coal and coke can now be obtained by householders in London; and whether the same Regulations apply to the provinces and to the area known as the Home Counties?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I have been asked to answer this question. A coal merchant in London who has provided the necessary reserve stock of coal for the use of small consumers during the winter months may meet orders on hand by delivering to his customers in rotation a load at a time. A merchant who has not established the necessary reserve may not deliver coal in excess of his customers' current requirements month, by month. The total quantity obtained must not exceed the quantity authorised under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919. No restriction is imposed upon the quantity of coke which may be obtained. The same restrictions apply to the Home Counties and to the provinces, with the exception of Yorkshire, where, in view of the shortage of coal, more stringent regulations are in force.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OILFIELD.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what amount the Government invested in the Anglo-Persian oilfield; and what is the market value of that investment today?
  Mr. LONG: The amount invested by His Majesty's Government was as follows:

  Ordinary shares

  £2,000,000

  Participating preference shares

  £1,000

  Debenture stock

  £199,000

  It is not possible to give any accurate estimate of the present value of the investment, as there is no Stock Exchange quotation for the ordinary shares. It is, however, undeniable that their value has considerably appreciated and cannot be measured merely by the dividend at present paid on them.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is this matter still under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty, considering it is a purely financial venture belonging to the-British Government, and ought it not to be under the Treasury, and have representations been addressed to the Prime Minister to that effect?
  Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman's question appears to me to be a matter of opinion. It is under the control of the directors of the company concerned, to which the Board of Admiralty only send one representative, and, so far as I know, the suggestion that it is under the direction of the First Lord has no foundation.

  ST. KILDA (WIRELESS STATION).
  Dr. MURRAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty obtained from the owners and occupiers of property in the island of St. Kilda gratuitous permission to erect, and did erect, a wireless station on the-island; whether, in attempting to destroy this wireless station, a German submarine injured the United Free church, two crofters' houses, and a house in which the district nurse resided; whether the Admiralty have agreed to indemnify the owners and occupiers of the injured property for the loss which they have suffered; and, if not, will the Admiralty explain upon what principle compensation was refused, seeing that no attack would have been made upon this defence less island if the Admiralty had not taken advantage of the gratuitous permission given, and erected this wireless station there?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty established a wireless telegraph station at St. Kilda in March, 1915, on the site of the old station which was dismantled shortly before the War, and I am glad to-record the fact that this was done with the gratuitous permission of the owners and occupiers of property and without necessity for recourse to requisition. I have received a report of the damage done by bombardment by an enemy submarine in May, 1918. The Admiralty have not agreed to indemnify the owners of the damaged property, who were invited by the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to my hon. Friend's question on. the 29th May, to send their claims to the Air Raid Compensation Committee. I

  343
  have no exact information as to the extent to which the claims have been met under the Government scheme which this Committee operates. I would observe, however, that, if some of the claims fail through non-compliance with the conditions governing it, the Admiralty could not undertake to make any grant of compensation as the conditions were published before the date of the attack on St. Kilda.
  Dr. MURRAY: In view of all the circumstances, and considering that these people could not know the law, is it not right that the Admiralty should regard this as a debt of honour and stimulate the Board of Trade to pay?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I must not be understood to give any undertaking whatever, but I shall be very glad to have my hon. Friend's representation placed before the proper authorities.
  Dr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all claims have been made?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Lieut.-Commander CRAIG: Is it not a fact that, as regards the population of St. Kilda, their access to the coast, both in regard to food and trading, was interrupted by the War, and that it was entirely due to the auxiliary patrol placed at the service of the population by the Government that life and commerce were maintained in the island?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should think that is quite true, but I am happy to say that also applies to a great many other places.

  GERMAN FLEET (SALVING OPERATIONS AT SCAPA FLOW).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what way the cost of the salving of the ex-German Fleet at Scapa is being met; and, in view of the importance of using all available plant for salving merchant steamers, whether he can say how many salvage -vessels are employed in the work and when the operations are likely to be finished?
  Mr. LONG: I would point out that no attempt has been made to salve the sunken German ships. The salvage
  344
  operations have only concerned those vessels which had been beached in shallow water before they had time to sink. The cost, which will not be large, is being met provisionally from Navy Votes, but the ultimate incidence of the charge will be settled between the Allies. Only one salvage vessel, which was lent by the Liverpool Salvage Association, was employed for about two weeks in getting these ships off, and the operations are now practically ended.

  MERCANTILE MARINE MEDAL.
  Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Mercantile Marino Medal is to be awarded to men who served on British merchant ships in certain areas; and if this medal will also be given to Royal Navy ratings who served in such ships as gun crew or signalmen?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not intended that naval ratings should be eligible for the Mercantile Marine War Medal, the object of which is to recognise the services of the Mercantile Marine during the War, unless they have qualified for the medal by service in the Mercantile Marine apart from their service as a naval rating. Naval ratings who have served in merchant service vessels as gun's crews or signalmen will be eligible for other awards under the same conditions as naval ratings who have served in the Fleet, so that they will be at no disadvantage as compared with the latter.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.
  Colonel BURNasked the Minister of Labour if any provision is to be made in the case of a man, who, rejected for the Army on medical grounds, was con scripted for national service and had to sell his business at a great loss, and now appeals for assistance to enable him to re-establish himself in his former position?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): The answer is in the negative, so far as funds administered by the Ministry of Labour are concerned. Grants from the Civil Liabilities Fund are, as the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, strictly limited to cases of serious hardship arising out of service

  345
  with His Majesty's Forces. I am, bow-ever, considering whether any steps can be taken to provide assistance from other sources in this type of case.

  NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to bring before the House the necessary legislation to put into operation the recommendations of the Industrial Conference with regard to the establishment of a permanent national industrial council?
  Sir R. HORNE: I hope to introduce Bills dealing with the recommendations of the Conference in regard to wages and the forty-eight hours' week before the Recess. I understand that the employers and the trade unions will then proceed to constitute their respective sides of the National Industrial Council.
  Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to see that this council includes any Members of this House who have undergone special treatment for mind and memory?

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (DAILY REGISTER).
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that the hours from 9a.m. to 4p.m., during which recipients of the unemployment benefit must sign the daily register at the Labour Exchanges near where they reside, seriously interferes with the opportunities of bond fide workers who are desirous to obtain work, debarring them from looking for it during the most suitable hours; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering the hours from 7 to 12 or 1?
  Sir R. HORNE: I recognise that attendance during the hours mentioned may to some extent limit the efforts that applicants can make to obtain employment on their own behalf, but the hours in question were deliberately fixed so as to fall within the normal hours of work, and thus make it difficult for a workman to make a claim at the Exchange on days when he is in fact at work. I regret that I am unable to vary the existing arrangement, which, so far as unemployment benefit is concerned, has worked satisfactorily for the last seven years.

  HORBURY JUNCTION WAGON WORKS (STRIKE).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether any representative of the Ministry has interviewed representatives of the workmen now on strike at Messrs. C. Roberts and Company, Limited, wagon works, Horbury Junction, since its commencement to ascertain their views as to the cause of the strike or how to bring" about a settlement; and, if not, will he meet a deputation from the workmen at the earliest possible date?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Officials of the Ministry of Labour have been dealing with the parties in the endeavour to settle this deplorable case, and the Parliamentary Secretary is meeting the parties to-day at Horbury.
  Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether he will agree to the discharged soldiers and sailors thrown out of work through the strike at Messrs. Roberts and Company, wagon works, Horbury Junction, receiving unemployment, benefits from his Department, seeing they have no means of subsistence except through recourse to the Poor Law?
  Sir R. HORNE: I understand that the men to whom the hon. Member refers are unemployed in consequence of a trade dispute at the premises at which they were employed. In these circumstances the rules under which unemployment benefit is granted prevent their receiving out-of-work donation during the continuance of the stoppage of work caused by the dispute.
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. LUNN:
  32. To ask the Minister of Labour whether letters have been received by his-Department from the workmen on strike at Messrs. C. Roberts and Company, Limited, wagon works, Horbury Junction, asking that a joint conference representative of the Ministry, the Discharged' Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, and the workmen on strike, should be arranged, with a view to arriving at a settlement of this dispute; and what steps have been taken by the Ministry in this direction?
  Mr. LUNN: May I say that this question should have suggested the employers as part of the joint conference as well as-the others?
  Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the question is in the negative, but I shall be glad to receive any information in the possession of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LUNN: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received information of meetings held last week wherein it was decided to send a joint representation to him asking that such a joint conference should be -called together as early as possible?
  Sir R. HORNE: No letter has been sent to me to that effect.

  GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT BY FARMERS).
  Mr. A. SHORTasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that farmers in the Brailes and Cherington district are employing German prisoners from Brailes camp, although there are numbers of our own workmen in the district unemployed: and whether he can take any action in this matter?
  Sir R. HORNE: There are standing instructions that no prisoners of war shall be employed, except in cases where suitable British civilian labour is not available. I will, however, have inquiries made into the circumstances in which prisoner labour is employed in the district referred to, and will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.
  Captain W. BENN: Are we not under an obligation to send German prisoners back to their homes?
  Sir R. HORNE: I believe there are such obligations connnected with the Peace Treaty—yes.

  MOROCCO (SPANISH ZONE).
  Major C. LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the Spanish zone in Morocco as denned in the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Madrid of 27th November, 1912, is actually under Spanish control?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government have not the information to enable them to give an authoritative answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to ascertain the information from His Majesty's representative in Tangier?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should think that would be possible, but we have not had sufficient notice.

  MEXICO.

    BRITISH INTERESTS.
    Major LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the post of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the; Republic of Mexico is still vacant; and, if so, whether he can state the reason?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend is in the affirmative. As regards the second, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to consider making this appointment until they are satisfied that there is such an improvement in the attitude of the Mexican Government towards British interests as will justify a recognition of that Government.
    Major LOWTHER: Is it a fact that there is already a Charge d'Affaires in Mexico?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir; we have a diplomatic representative.
    Major LOWTHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to showing the desire of His Majesty's Government to maintain cordial relations with the smaller as well as the larger Spanish-American Republics, he will consider granting the local rank of Chargéd 'Affaires to the Consuls- General in Honduras and Nicaragua and the Consuls in Costa Rica and Salvador?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to the existing practice, His Majesty's Minister in Guatemala also holds the posts of Minister as well as Consul-General in Nicaragua, Honduras, and Salvador. His Majesty's Minister in Panama in like manner holds the posts of Minister and Consul-General in Costa Rica. The two latter posts are at present in abeyance, as His Majesty's Government have not recognised the present Government of Costa Rica.
    Major LGWTHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we have a Minister in Cuba who looks after our interests in San Domingo, we have also a Chargéd' Affaires in Hayti and San Domingo, and is there any reason why these Republics should not be treated in the same way as the Republic: of San Domingo?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is under consideration.

  EGYPT (HIGH COMMISSIONERS).
  Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is now paying the salaries of two High Commissioners of Egypt, and, if so, how long this practice will continue?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The salary of the High Commissioner for Egypt is not being paid twice over. Sir Reginald Wingate is drawing a proportion of the total provision for the post and is defraying certain expenses in Egypt. The Treasury have been asked to authorise the payment of the balance to Sir Edmund' Allenby, in addition to his Army pay and allowances as Commander-in-Chief, to meet his additional expenses as special High Commissioner while holding that appointment.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that Field-Marshal (Sir E. Allenby has received such a sum of money as would be the equivalent of the salary of the High Commissioner of Egypt at a time, say, last year?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that down.

  PALESTINE (PRE-WAR REVENUE).
  Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the average annual revenue derived from Palestine before the War; and what is the cost of British administration: in that country to-day?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As the pre-war Turkish Budgets do not show separately the revenues derived from all the administrative areas, it is not possible to state what was the average pre-war revenue for Palestine. The estimated collection for the Jerusalem Sanjak in 1911–12 was £ (Turkish) 312,452, but the amount estimated
  350
  invariably exceeded considerably the amount collected. Our estimated expenditure for the year 1918–19 for the administrative district known as occupied enemy territory south, which is coterminous with the former Turkish Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre, is £ (Egyptian) 738,649. Estimated receipts for the same period are £ (Egyptian) 661,813.
  Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be decided who is to be the mandatory Power for Palestine?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of this question.

  PEACE TREATY.

    GERMAN SHIPPING.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs if certain German shipping at Neufahrwasser and in the district adjacent to the mouth of the Vistula and Moltava has been nominally transferred by Germany to Holland; if, as the result of this action, when Poland takes possession of the Pomeranian coast she will find that it has been divested of all shipping; if such action is contrary to the provisions of the Peace Treaty; and what steps will be taken to put the matter right?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The facts of the case are these: There are some old and obsolete German warships lying at Neufahrwasser. The Germans have received permission from the Allied Naval Armistice Commission to sell two of these vessels, namely, the "Worth" and the "Hildebrand," to Dutch firms for breaking-up purposes. They have requested permission to sell five or six other old war vessels lying at the same port to Dutch firms for similar purposes, and this request is under consideration by the Allied Naval Armistice Commission.

    ENEMY COUNTRIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked when the Peace Treaties with the remaining enemy countries are likely to be concluded; and whether they will necessitate passing further Bills through the House?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards the first part of the question, I regret I am not at present in a position to say when the Peace Treaties with the remaining enemy countries will be concluded. Until

    351
    the provisions of the various Treaties are determined, it is impossible to say what legislation they will involve.

    HOSTILE AIR RAIDS (CLAIMS).
    Lieut.-Col. ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Prime Minister what action should be taken by the dependants of those killed in hostile air raids in order that their claims may be submitted to and settled by Germany, as provided by Article 232 of the Treaty of Peace?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Applicants should send in particulars of their claims to the Foreign Claims Office, Foreign Office.

  ALBANIA.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERTasked what experts have been consulted with regard to the delimitation of the frontiers of Albania?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am unable to give the hon. and gallant Member the information he asks for, but the Peace Conference have at their disposal the best expert advice on the subject.

  "THE RECONQUEST OF AMERICA."
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an anti-British pamphlet, entitled, "The Re-conquest of America," published by Gordon Brown and Company, New York, and distributed broadcast; and will he say if any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to counteract such forms of propaganda in view of their effect on the relations which exist between the two great English-speaking nations?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is unknown how widely the pamphlet may have been distributed, but in any case no steps seem necessary to counteract what is evidently intended to be a humorous production.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter contained in this pamphlet, alleged to have been addressed to the Prime Minister, is quite obviously a falsification, and that the statements contained in the letter are to the meanest intelligence quite untrue?

  EUROPEAN RAILWAYS (RATES AND FARES).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether passenger fares or goods rates on railways- have been increased since 1914 in France,. Holland, Italy, and Belgium; and, if so, can he state what the increases have been and from what dates they have been effective?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to a general increase in passenger fares or goods rates in France, Holland, and Belgium. On 11th January, 1917, the price of ordinary railway tickets in Italy was increased by 20 per cent. and of season tickets by 25 per cent. On 10th December, 1917, the prices were further increased by 50 per cent. for first- and second-class and 30 per cent, for third-class tickets, both ordinary and season.

  UKRAINE.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the alleged wholesale massacres. of the dwellers in the cities of the Ukraine by the bandit Zelini; and whether any measures are being taken to arrest the mischievous propaganda which he and his followers are said to be spreading through out that country?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question asked by the hon. Member is that His Majesty's Government are not in possession of any official information on the subject of the activities of Zelini. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative in so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    EX-GERMAN AND EX-OTTOMAN TERRITORIES.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made to recruit the permanent Civil Service for ex-German and ex-Ottoman territories for which this country is to- become responsible as mandatory of the League of Nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Until the final decision is taken with regard to the mandates of the League of Nations, temporary administration is being carried on by officers of the Colonial Services concerned. I am informed that the Foreign Office is collecting the names and particulars of candidates "who are likely to prove suitable when a decision has been come to.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept as candidates disabled officers from the Indian Army who are specially qualified for these posts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that is necessary, but I shall call the attention of the Foreign Office to that matter. I am sure, however, they will attend to it on their own initiative.

  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (CLUBS).
  Major COPEasked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state when the restrictions respecting the sale of alcoholic drinks imposed on clubs as a temporary war measure will be removed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to previous replies to questions on this subject.

  ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARRENasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the manner in which many municipal councils have loyally adopted the suggestions of His Majesty's Government and increased the wages of its workmen and the salaries of its teachers and officials, thereby placing a burden upon the ratepayers, which is now as heavy as they can bear, the Government will institute an immediate inquiry into the economic and financial conditions of the country, with a view to allaying the unrest and discontent that prevails, and in the hope that ameliorative measures may result?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that the difficulties referred to in the question are by no means limited to municipal councils. The whole situation is engaging the close attention of His Majesty's Government, but I doubt
  354
  whether a general inquiry of the kind suggested would serve any useful purpose.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIR DIVISION (NAVAL STAFF).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Prim Minister for what purpose the Air Department of the Admiralty is maintained?
    Mr. LONG: I have been asked to answer this question. I would repeat the reply which I gave on the 31st July to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Twickenham Division, that there is no Air Department at the Admiralty. There is an Air Division of the Naval Staff, which advises as to air operations affecting Royal Air Force units working with the Fleet. This division is manned by Royal Air Force officers lent by the Air Ministry. I might add that this arrangement was made to meet war conditions, and the question of the best means of securing the necessary close co-operation in peace-time is at present being considered by the two Departments.

  EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement on behalf of the Government to the effect that it has not been definitely decided whether the ex-Kaiser's trial will take place in London; and whether this statement is intended to supersede his own declaration that it was the unanimous decision of the Allies that such trial should take place in London?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allies have not altered their decision in regard to this matter, but no action can be taken until the Treaty has been ratified.

  SCOTTISH BUSINESS.
  Mr. G. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Scottish business is invariably taken on days inconvenient to Scottish Members and that insufficient time is allotted, he will consider the desirability, pending the establishment of devolution, of remitting all Scottish business to the Scottish Grand Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I thing my hon. Friend exaggerates the position in the first part of his question, and in any case, as he is aware, it is not the Government but the Opposition which selects the subjects to be taken on Supply days.

  VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached as to the continuance of the British Mission to the Vatican; and whether, in considering the question, the Cabinet hare borne in mind the value that the Mission has been during the War and the disadvantage that will result if, whilst other great Powers are diplomatically represented at the Vatican, the United Kingdom is deprived of an official representative, in spite of the large Roman Catholic population of the British Empire and the political interests that are involved, particularly in Ireland, Australia, and the United States of America?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have not yet come to a decision on this subject.
  Sir S. HOARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can hardly promise that. But my hon. Friend knows that there is no hurry, for the existing arrangement continues until the War is over.

  POET LAUREATE.
  Sir ERNEST WILDasked the Prime Minister whether the office of Poet Laureate is a life appointment irrespective of inspiration and intellectual output?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The office of Poet Laureate is a life appointment.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Who is the Poet Laureate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does my right hon. Friend not know.
  Mr. LAMBERT: No.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Mr. Bridges.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does this office carry any obligation to write poems?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not! Of all possible obligations that would have been the most unreasonable.
  Sir E. WILD: Is this salaried office a silent sinecure?

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the more generous treatment in regard to pensions which is being given to those who have served in the recent War, he will consider the claim to more generous treatment of those soldiers who have fought in previous wars in which this country has been engaged, notably the South African war, and who have now great difficulty in managing to exist?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer, on the 7th ultimo, to the hon. and gallant Member for East Fife, to which I have nothing at present to add.

    WAR GRATUITIES.
    Major COPEasked if, in view of the fact that the Government has the use of large sums of money owing to the delay in the payment of war gratuities, he will advise that these gratuities should be paid with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. from the date the receipt of the clearance certificate is acknowledged by the War Office to the date the gratuity is actually paid; and, if not, will he state his reasons for coming to this decision?
    Mr. FORSTER: As already announced, all war gratuities are now about to be paid, and special steps have been taken to secure that there is no avoidable delay. In the circumstances, it is not considered necessary to introduce any system of paying interest for the time occupied by the Agents in making payment, as the complications so caused would themselves retard the payments.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (UNMARRIED WIFE).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will grant a Return showing how many unmarried separation allowances were

    357
    drawn by women unable to marry by reason of the man or woman or the illegal union having a legal spouse alive?
    Mr. FORSTER: The documents supporting a claim for separation allowance for an unmarried wife do not always show whether the parties to the claim were married or single. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to give this Return.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Will my right hon. Friend see that allowances are not given to any man for more than one wife?
    Mr. FORSTER: We ensure that as far as we can.

  MARRIAGE LEGISLATION.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to promote legislation to allow the vast body of judicially or mutually separated married persons in the country to remarry and have legitimate children?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

  TERMINATION OF WAR DEFINITION ACT.
  Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal, whether he can state when it is intended officially to declare the War to be over; and whether he can make a statement as to the repeal of the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Termination of the War Definition Act can only be brought into force as near as may foe simultaneously with the Ratifications of Peace, and the Defence of the Realm Regulations, unless extended by a special Statute, will come to an end.
  Captain BENN: Is it necessary to wait until all the belligerent Powers have ratified the Treaty before it is possible to put a definition of the "end of the War" into being?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is necessary to wait until all the Treaties have been ratified, and until we have the ratification.
  Captain BENN: Will the Defence of the Realm Act continue until twenty-five belligerents have had opportunity separately to ratifiy the Peace Treaty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, no. As regards the Treaty with Germany it was arranged that whenever it is ratified by three Powers it will come into force. What were the arrangements with the others I cannot now say.

  SIR HENRY WILSON'S FORECAST.
  Sir F. HALLasked what action was taken toy the Government after the expression of opinion advanced at Versailles in January, 1918, by Sir Henry Wilson, in the presence of the Prime Minister, that the Germans would probably concentrate 100 divisions opposite the British front, on the left of the French line, with the object of severing the British and French armies; what was the total strength of the British 5th Army then opposite the German line in this sector of front and the strength of the Germans opposed to them; what was the relative strength of the two forces at the time of the German attack in March, 1918; whether the course of the campaign foreseen by Sir Henry Wilson was discussed by him at any time with General Gough; whether General Gough was given such reinforcements as he considered necessary to enable him to resist this anticipated mass attack by the Germans; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the Cabinet had already been informed of the probable course of events, he will now state the grounds on which General Gough was relieved of his command, in consequence of a disaster due to the failure to take the necessary measures to strengthen his Army which were called for by Sir Henry Wilson's forecast of events?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible that the many extremely interesting and highly controversial issues raised in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend could be dealt with by question and answer.

  ARMY APPRENTICES (TRAINING).
  Captain BOWYERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the results and experience so far obtained justify a demand that the general and technical education of apprentices and others similar to that at present carried on in the Army at Home and abroad, especially in the Army of the Rhine, should form

  359
  part of the regular training of the postwar Army; and, if so, what steps are being taken to gave practical effect to the experience already gained?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my replies yesterday to questions on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked whether the women telegraphists who joined up in the Queen. Mary's Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and who served overseas are being refused the war gratuity on demobilisation; whether, having regard to the greatly increased cost of all articles of clothing which have to be purchased on demobilisation, and in view of the necessity for approximately equal treatment, he will reconsider the question so far as the members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps are concerned; and whether he is able to state the War Office decision as to the future rate of pay of the women who have been retained with the Army of Occupation?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on the 16th July last.

    226th DIVISION EMPLOYMENT CAMP (PRIVATE CLARK).
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Clark, No. 610981, 226th Division Employment Camp, British Army of the Rhine; whether he is aware that this soldier's father is seventy years old and incapable of doing any work for himself and that he mother is a chronic invalid, both parents being in distress on account of this soldier's continued service with the forces; whether he is aware that this man endeavoured to enlist in 1914 and 1915 but was rejected on medical grounds, but that in spite of the circumstances in this man's favour he has been refused demobilisation for the reason that he case is not considered to come within the grounds of extreme compassion; and whether he will give sympathetic consideration to the request for Private Clark's immediate release?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no trace of any application having been received by the War Office on behalf of Private Clark. The application referred to by my hon. Friend was apparently made to the man's commanding officer, who is in possession of all instructions regarding demobilisation, and I am confident that this 6oldier's release would not have been refused had his case fallen within any of the categories prescribed in the instructions governing releases on such grounds. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to reconsider the decision. If, however, this soldier is eligible under the conditions of the Memorandum recently published he will be released accordingly.

    ENLISTMENT UNDER AGE.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for War if he is aware that Driver E. Hunter, No. 296561, G Sub-section, 2nd Battery, Royal Field Artillery, Fenham Barracks, Newcastle-on-Tyne, enlisted, and is not seventeen years of age, and enlisted against his mother's wish?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are being made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result in due course.

    ARMY IN INDIA.
    Mr. CAREWasked whether the 1st/4th Devons, who were sent out to India at the outbreak of the War, are now being split up into email parties and attached to other regiments; and whether this may unduly delay their return home, which has been so long promised?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The cadre of this battalion is on its way home. Such personnel as were liable to be retained under existing Army Orders will have been transferred to other units, but it is not considered that this will unduly delay their return home. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether these men are now being sent to the Afghan frontier?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot. We are endeavouring to release these men as fast as possible. Battalions are going out every week to relieve these men, but, meanwhile, the position on the Indian frontier is such as to call for a large force, and the Indian authorities must have full

    361
    latitude to deal with these troops until they can be replaced to the best possible advantage.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked whether there are still in India any officers and men who, prior to 30th April last, had been certified by medical boards as unfit to remain in the country; and, if so, can their return be expedited?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In March, 1919, there were 6,463 unfit men and 215 officers recommended on medical grounds for repatriation before the hot weather. Of the men 5,500 were sent home and the remaining 963 unfit, taken from the least urgent cases in order of medical priority, were sent up to the hill stations. In April, on a further reduction of the garrison of India, most of these' remaining cases were sent home. It is possible on account of the recent outbreak that some of these men may have had to be retained, but they have been in excellent climates in the hill stations.

    IRISH SOLDIERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked whether, now that peace has been ratified, men who enlisted voluntarily in Ireland during the years 1916, 1917, and 1918 for the duration of the War may immediately be released from military service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I promised yesterday, I will consider the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As compulsory service never came into force in Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the case of these men is entirely different to that of the men who joined at corresponding dates in this country under the threat of Conscription; and, in view of the present state of Ireland, does he think it wise to break the bond on the strength of which these men joined and leave them with a sense of a burning grievance?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that public pledges were given in this House, and also by advertisements circulated in every part of Ireland that these men would be demobilised immediately upon the cessation of hostilities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I agree. I think they are in a different category, and they are at least in as good a position as the
    362
    Derby men. I will go into the matter to see if anything can be done. The difficulties are enormous at the present time in dealing with these questions in the many emergencies which present themselves in our various theatres.

  HOME SERVICE (MEDALS AND DECORATIONS).
  Colon I BURNasked if it is intended to give a medal to those officers and non commissioned officers who came to their country's aid and gave all their spare time to training troops at home during the War?
  Mr. SUGDENasked what type of decoration is to be given to those men who volunteered for active service during the War, but who, by reason of medical incapacity, were allowed only home service, and so served—this in respect of both officers and men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friends to the answers which I gave yesterday to questions on this subject. The matter is under consideration.

  WEST YORKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE RYDER).
  Major E. WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the death by suicide on the 14th July, 1919, of Private E. H. Ryder, No. 236959, West Yorkshire Regiment, attached 474th Agricultural Company, Labour Corps; whether application for this man's release on the compassionate ground that his wife was dying of consumption was repeatedly made, and refused; and whether, in view of the strong local feeling that his death was in great measure attributable to this refusal, he will cause an immediate inquiry to be made into all the circum stances?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries will be made in this case, and my hon. and gallant Friend informed of the result as early as possible.

  ARMY LEAVE.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked whether, in view of the shortage of labour in agricultural districts, special leave will be granted

  363
  to soldier agricultural labourers upon application being made for their services by their previous employers and others?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of granting leave for the purpose of collecting the harvest is now under consideration. All commands at home have been notified that paragraph 59 of the King's Regulations may be observed, and that soldiers may be employed in harvest work provided their employment is in the locality in which they are stationed and that their duties are not thereby interfered with.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private H. Jacklin, No. 27120, 1/5th Royal West Kent Regiment, Poona, India, has served in Mesopotamia and India nearly three years, and has had no leave since joining in 1916 under Lord Derby's scheme, though others in his regiment who joined twelve months later have been demobilised; and whether Private Jacklin can now be released and restored to his business, which awaits him?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Memorandum recently published, in which it states that all Derby men who joined the Colours before 1st July, 1916, who are in India, will have started for home by the 1st December, if not released earlier, provided always that no unexpected trouble occurs in that country. I gather, however, that Private Jacklin is the owner of a one-man business, and his case may therefore come within the recent instructions for the release of such men. If he is not entitled to release as a Derby man, his case can be considered on business grounds if my hon. Friend will submit the necessary certified statement.

  ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (RIFLES).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked whether the rifles and ammunition of the Ulster Volunteers are in military custody; whether it was made a condition of surrendering them that they should not be removed from Ulster; whether, in fact, they are still in Ulster; what position is now held in the British Army in Ulster by General Hacket Paine; and what position was held by the same gentleman in the Ulster Volunteer organisation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-
  364
  tive, and to the second part in the negative. It is not considered to be in. the public interest to state where arms are stored. As regards the last part of the question, Brigadier-General Sir G. W. Hacket Paine is in command of the Northern District in the Irish Command.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (LONDON AND PARIS).
  Lieut. Colonel W. GUINNESSasked now many telephone lines between London and Paris are now monopolised by the War Office and Air Force, and how many telephone conversations take place daily on an average; and whether he can say at what date these telephone facilities will be restricted so as to enable lines again to be used for business purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is one direct line to Paris from the War Office, and this is fitted on a small switchboard, for the use of a limited number of extensions, which are connected up with it. This is the only line to Paris monopolised by the War Office. There is no line reserved entirely for the Air Force. Other calls are passed over lines which are used in common with other Government Departments, and average about twenty-five per day in the case of the War Office and twenty per day in the case of the Air Ministry.
  Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been told by the Postmaster-General that there are ten telephone lines monopolised by the Government, and are we to understand that although the War Office only monopolise one line it also makes use of a good many of the other facilities; and in view of the grave need of the public telephone to Paris will the right hon. Gentleman see whether some of this business cannot be done by post?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already said that, apart from the private line from the War Office to Paris, there are, on an average, only about twenty-five messages a day from the War Office and twenty from the Air Force. If there axe ten lines in existence, it would mean that forty-five messages a day pass over ten lines and that would be only four messages per line, and that does not look like a monopoly of those lines.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In view of the attitude of the Postmaster-General, will the right hon. Gentleman inform that Minister that the War Office do not need more than one line?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not undertake to substitute correspondence for the use of the telephone.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the War Office limited to three minute calls over this wire?

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF FISHERIES).
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in. view of the fact that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are advertising vacancies as assistant inspectors of fisheries at a commencing salary of £150 per annum and were un able or unwilling to advertise a vacancy as chief inspector of fisheries at £l,000 per annum, the instruction of the President of the 25th February last with reference to the advertisement of vacancies as inspectors only applies to the poorer paid appointments at the fisheries branch of the Board?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): No, Sir. The instruction of the President of the 25th February last applies to all appointments to the permanent staff of the Board without regard to the salaries attaching to them.
  Major E. WOOD: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable feeling has been caused in different parts of the country by the appointment of quite unsuitable men to posts under the Board?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have not heard of that.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what is the amount of war bonus payable to assistant inspectors of fisheries is receipt of a salary of £150 per annum; and whether, in view of the fact that the weekly wage of stokers and sea men in coastal steamers is fixed by the National Maritime Board at £3 17s. 6d., the Board consider that such a salary is a reasonable one for an assistant inspector of fisheries?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The amount of war bonus payable to assistant inspectors for fishery business entering at the initial salary of £150 is £92 12s. per annum. The scale of salary authorised by the Treasury for the posts in question is £150 rising by annual increments of £10 to £250 per annum, plus war bonus. Travelling and subsistence allowances on the usual scales are also payable. The question of the improvement of the position of assistant inspectors is under consideration.

  WANDSWORTH ALLOTMENT- HOLDERS (NOTICE TO QUIT).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his Department has given ten days' notice to allotment-holders at Union Road and Clapham Road, Wandsworth, to quit their holdings; whether this land is stated to be required for the erection of a laundry; whether he is aware that if these notices take effect £350 worth of foodstuffs will be lost; whether the erection of a laundry is of greater national importance at this time than the production of food; why the Wandsworth Borough Council did not issue the notices to quit seeing the council was in session on 30th July, the date when the notices were issued by the Board; and whether, in view of the hardship which will fall on these holders, the need for saving this food to the, community, and the appeals made by the Prime Minister and the Food Controller for increased production, he will secure that these holders are allowed to remain till the end of the present season at least?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Notices, dated 30th ult., and expiring on the 11th inst., have been issued by the Board to certain allotment-holders on the land referred to which is required for the immediate erection of a laundry, which is to cost £50,000, and to employ 150 people. The Board made every effort compatible with national economy to defer relinquishment of possession as long as possible. The builders were anxious to commence before the plans had been passed, and were prepared to take any risk in so doing in order to take full advantage of the long hours and fine weather. The Board would not agree to give up the land until the 12th inst., which is as far as the Department could go without incurring a heavy risk of liability

  367
  to pay the lessors, lessees, and the builders, very substantial sums in compensation. The Board were advised on the 27th ult. that the cultivation committee of the local authority would not meet again until October, and, in view of the urgency of the matter, the notices in question were served under the Seal of the Board. I regret the necessity of disturbing the allotment-holders, but, on the other hand, the Board are not prepared to pay large subsidies from public funds where allotment-holders cannot otherwise be maintained secure in their holdings. The allotment-holders will receive full compensation for their crops and labour.

  HULL CITY HALL.
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the City Hall at Hull is still retained by the Government; that this hall is essential for the social and artistic life of the city; that there is great and growing dissatisfaction in the city at its continued retention; that he promised some months ago that he would release it as early as possible; and that there is other suitable accommodation for the purposes it is at present being used for; and whether he will give immediate instructions for its restoration to the city?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first, second, and fourth parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third and fifth parts, every endeavour has been, and is being, made to obtain other suitable accommodation, but hitherto without success, and until such accommodation has been found the answer to the last part must be in the negative. If the corporation can suggest any suitable alternative I shall, of course, be very willing to consider it.

  BRADFORD WOOL TEXTILE PRODUCTION COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an order given by the Co-operative Wholesale Society on 11th October, 1918, was refused by the Wool Textile Produc-
  368
  tion Committee at Bradford and passed on to the Standard Cloth (Worsted) Committee; can he state whether this Committee is now in a position to fulfil the order; is he aware that the substitute for the cloth that was released on the understanding that a similar material would be issued is of an inferior quality; and will he prosecute inquiries as to this breach of faith which is a detriment to the firm concerned?
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. I am unable to trace the transactions referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will give me more definite details I will have inquiries made.

  GERMAN GLOVES (EXPORTS).
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER - SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of gloves manufactured in Germany is now prohibited?
  Sir A. QEDDES: Leather gloves, for which a general licence has been issued, may new be imported from Germany without restriction; fabric gloves may not be imported without individual licences, and it is not at present proposed that such licences should be given.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some assurance that those provisions will be maintained for some time, or that alternatively some form of protection shall be given to the home manufacturer to enable him to supply these articles?
  Sir A. GEDDES: The general statement on Trade Policy to be made, I hope before the House rises, will supply an answer to that question.
  Captain W. BENN: Why forbid Germany to send these articles considering the high prices?
  Sir A. GEDDES: I said leather gloves could be imported, but not fabric gloves.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there would be considerable opposition to the policy adumbrated by the hon. and gallant Member opposite?

  LIVERPOOL POLICE STRIKE.

    HOME SECRETARY'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. S. ROBINSON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that attempts were being made by irresponsible persons to bring about a complete stoppage of all work in Liverpool?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): No material change in the position in Liverpool has taken place, and no more police have joined the strikers. One or two attempts at looting were made last night, but were immediately suppressed. There are threats of other strikes which would affect the essential needs of the community. I am well aware that certain persons are attempting to bring about a complete stoppage of work, without any thought of the suffering involved, and to hand over the city to the mercies of the criminal classes. They are far from being irresponsible persons. Fortunately, up to the present they have failed, and the Government have every confidence that the authorities in Liverpool will take every step, however severe, to preserve law and order. To prevent such unwarrantable ani3 sinister attacks, the Government are prepared to render every assistance to the Liverpool authorities.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for five days previous to yesterday, in open daylight, wholesale looting was going on, handcarts were brought up, hammers were used to break windows, and goods were taken away and strewed all over the streets, without anybody interfering with the looters? Are the forces at the command of the Government unable to prevent that kind of thing being continued?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it is quits correct to say that no one interfered. The mob did get control for a considerable time, but as quickly as possible the military were sent up to the assistance of the local authorities. A battleship and two destroyers are there to render assistance, and every further step that is necessary will be taken to conquer the mob and to bring peace about again.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous to that the streets of the city were occupied by men with deliberately lawless objects without any interference from anybody at all?
    Mr. SHORTT: Interference did take place as soon as possible. I am quite well aware that the people at the back of this got hold of the criminal classes—the worst classes—and brought them to their assistance, but every step has Been taken to restore law and order.
    Mr. REMER: Was any attempt made to burn any of the docks?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am told there were such attempts, but they were fortunately defeated.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens in this country expect the Government to arrest the fomenters of this agitation?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not suppose they expect the Government to arrest anyone who has not broken the letter of the law.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the Government start with their own supporters?

  PROFITEERING PREVENTION.

    GOVERNMENT BILL.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade to the Committee on Profiteering, intimating that it is the intention of the Government to bring in. a Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on what day he proposes to bring in that Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, notice of the presentation of the Bill will be handed in to-day, and it will be taken as soon as possible.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Bill be passed before the House rises for the holidays?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we must pass it.
    Mr. HOLMES: May I inquire why the Government asked a fortnight ago for the appointment of this Select Committee to inquire into profiteering and why the Food Controller eat as a witness all day yesterday if they felt in a position to introduce legislation without waiting for the Report of the Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the House no slight is intended to the Committee. At the time I announced its formation I said that at the same time the Government were considering what steps

    371
    they should themselves take in the meantime. As a matter of fact, I believe my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has seen this Committee in regard to the proposals which the Government are going to make.
    Mr. HOLMES: Did the Food Controller know yesterday, when he was a witness, that legislation was going to be announced to the Committee by the President of the Board of Trade to-day?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: He knew the Government were considering the question, but did not know we had decided to do it.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is the Bill an attempt to amend the existing law, or is it intended to provide a different law for profiteering?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would be inadvisable to attempt now to describe the Bill, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will wait until he sees it. It is an attempt to deal in a very drastic way with this difficulty.

  BOLAND'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading, of Boland's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[Sir Henry Craik.]

  SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
Report to He upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 161.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill [Lords]; Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
War Loan Bill, without Amendment.
Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill,
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill, Sheffield Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to disqualifications on account of sex." [Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill Lords.]
That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords],
Nuneaton Corporation Bill [Lords],
Poole Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

BILL PRESENTED.
RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL,—
"to make further provision for the destruction of Rats and Mice," presented by Sir Arthur BOSCAWEN; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SEA, LAND, AND AIR WAR SERVICES.
    PRIME MINISTER'S TRIBUTE.

      MONEY GRANTS BY PARLIAMENT.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
      "That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines for their sleepless watch over the seas and for the courage, resource, and devotion with which,-during four years of constant peril, they have maintained the blockade of the enemy's coast, convoyed Armies drawn from the most distant lands, and defended the commerce of the civilised world against the craft and subtlety of a lawless foe:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Armies in the field for the matchless valour and endurance with which, amid circumstances of unexampled hardship, they have sustained the shock of war in many climes, for the good humour, clemency, and patience of their bearing, and for the undaunted spirit which has carried them through four years of strenuous toil to a complete and splendid victory:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Air Force for their brilliant, daring and conspicuous services over sea and land:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the gallant troops from the Dominions overseas, from India, and from the Colonies and Protectorates, for the promptitude with which they responded to the call of justice and freedom, and for the noble part that they have played in conjunction with their comrades of the British Isles, in securing the triumph of right over wrong:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to those subjects of His Majesty who, inspired by the greatness of the issue, voyaged from foreign lands to offer their lives in the service of their country:
      402
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and of the Indian Medical Service for the skilful discharge of their humane office, and for the unprecedented success which attended their unremitting labours to preserve the armed Forces of the Crown from the ravages of disease:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the women of the medical and other auxiliary services for their devotion in tending the sick and wounded as for other duties faithfully and bravely discharged:
      That the thanks of this House be accorded to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine for the fine and fearless seamanship by which our people have been preserved from want and our cause from disaster:
      That this House doth acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of the country and tenders its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride:
      That Mr. Speaker do signify the said Resolutions to the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, and to the Army Council, and to His Majesty's Secretaries of State for India and for the Colonial Department, and to the President of the Board of Trade to communicate the same to the officers and men referred to therein."
      While I assume that the two Resolutions standing in my name will be put separately from the Chair, I hope the House will permit me to make observations which will cover both. About a year or two ago it was my privilege to stand at this box to move a Vote of Thanks to the fighting Forces of the Crown for their services in the Great War. I then had to cover a good deal of ground, distinguishing not merely the various Services, but the various branches of the Services. I, therefore, hope that it will be unnecessary for me to travel the same ground to-day. With regard to the Resolution of Thanks which it is proposed to give to the great soldier who commanded the Allied Forces on the Western Front, I am sure the House will be glad to have an opportunity of expressing its gratitude for the first time to that great leader. In a War where many have won high renown in the field, his genius, by general recognition of friend and foe, is the most

      403
      shining, and his fame the most towering. The War would have been won by the valour, the endurance, and the resources of the Allies without Marshal Foch's leadership, but I am profoundly convinced that it would not have been won in 1918 without it. What that means to the world it is difficult to calculate. It is difficult enough to rebuild the structure after four years of shattering war. What would have happened had there been another year or another two years of casualties, of loss, of destruction, of anxiety, and of unrest no one can depict. From all those dark possibilities we were saved by the genius of Marshal Foch, and the gratitude of this people, as well as of all the civilised nations of the world, ought to go out to him. I, therefore, count it a great privilege to move that the thanks of the House be given to Field-Marshal Foch for his services to the Allied cause.
      I have to move the Vote of Thanks to the gallant men and the devoted women who have served the Allied cause for the last four or five years. Five years ago to this week this country was called upon to make the greatest decision in its history. A harsh and cruel challenge rang out suddenly, almost without warning—a challenge to the nobility of our race. It was one of those challenges that no nation could disregard without forfeiting its honour, and without loss of its self-respect. If we had not responded to that challenge in the true spirit we might have waxed gross on the sacrifices of other and nobler races than we would have proved. We would, indeed, have become a prosperous people, but a despised people. The answer was worthy of this great country and of this great Empire. Let me say here, in passing, that we owe thanks to those who at that time were the national leaders in reaching that decision for saving this land from that shame—I mean Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey. What happened on that date? On the 1st August, 1914, we were, by common assumption, the most unwarlike people in Europe. There was some ground for that assumption. On the Continent of Europe every male, from the moment he arrived at years of intelligence, contemplated the horrors of war as part of the destiny through which he might have to pass in life. His fathers had gone through it for generations almost without a break. When they arrived at
      404
      a certain year they had served an apprenticeship in war. For two years they practised war—how to handle rifles and machine-guns and cannon, and how to face rifles and machine-guns and cannon.
      4.0 P.M.
      Their minds for two or three years were concentrated on that problem. For years after that they were brought up, year after year, for something like mimic warfare, which reminded them of what might be in store for them any day. The slightest diplomatic cloud on the horizon was regarded by them as something that might develop into a storm which would break upon their heads and upon their homes. That was the Continent of Europe.
      But here war was as remote a contingency from the men of the 1st August, 1914, as anything could be, for a country which for hundreds of years had not seen war on its shores. What war meant for men of British birth was that, at the worst that could happen, those who had chosen war as a profession might be engaged. Then came a great change. On the 4th August the challenge was made to the chivalry of our people, and what followed is one of the most remarkable incidents in history. Millions of men of the type I have described. who never thought of war, suddenly rallied to the Flag. They rallied in such numbers that even a great manufacturing country like ours could not manufacture the necessary weapons of war for them to handle or to train themselves with. It was one of the most thrilling and inspiring episodes in the history of the world, and that episode will always be honourably associated with the great name of Lord Kitchener. Men so brought up, men with such a peaceful outlook on life, men with such a training, when the hour of battle came, whether on field or on flood, behaved with a gallantry, a valour, and a dauntlessness that ranks them with the iron Infantry of Marlborough and Wellington, and on sea with the daring seamen of Drake.
      I doubt whether in the history of war such multitudes of men have ever displayed such sustained courage. Has there ever been such a strain upon courage as in this War? In the old wars there were great (battles fought—one, two, three—not many, in the course of a campaign. There were great intervals either of rest or of marching, at any rate of relaxation, from the great strain upon human nerve. There was

      405
      hardly any here. The peril was in the battle and the peril was in the billets. There were long-range guns, and bombing even in rest camps. The strain was ever present upon the nerves of these gallant men. War has never witnessed such a trial of manhood, and British soldiers and British seamen stood it to the last. What is true of the battlefield is equally true of the sea. It is difficult for us to estimate the constant strain upon the courage of our seamen. There is a letter from Collingwood, written when the was outside Toulon blockading that port. He was talking of the weather, and of the vigilance that was required. He said:
      "Every one of the blasts we are enduring lessens the security of the country. The last cruise disabled five large ships, and two more lately. Several of them must be docked. I have hardly known what a night of rest is these two months. This incessant cruising seems to me beyond the powers of human nature. Calder is worn to a shadow and quite broken down, and I am told that Graves is not much better."
      That was for two months! The incessant cruising of this War was not for two months, not for two years, but even longer. In those days the enemy was visible; here the enemy was hidden. There the enemy could be seen approaching; here the enemy was underneath, and out of sight. The mined areas covered huge tracts of sea. There were ships that knew, when they sailed or steamed through areas which were not supposed to be mined, that, perhaps a quarter of an hour before they arrived there, mines had been laid along that track, with disastrous effects upon their craft. This is the strain which our sailors of the Navy bore.
      As to our sailors of the Mercantile Marine, they faced horrors often worse than those of the battlefield. A ship torpedoed, perhaps scores of miles from any shore, in rough weather, with frail boats and no time to stock the boats—the cruel waves, like beasts of prey, playing with their victims before devouring them; and often they were spared for a worse fate—the incredible torture of hunger and thirst. No wonder that 15,000 of them fell victims to the cruellest and most dastardly piracy ever perpetrated on the high seas. But, as His Majesty the King said the other day, it is noteworthy that the survivors, after they escaped, "never failed to return to the same perilous duties." They knew that the fate of the Allied cause depended on their faithfulness, even unto death. We owe them thanks, and it ought to be the pride
      406
      of the House that represents the people of this land to accord it them. Everywhere on land, on sea, in the air, the strain on the heart, the nerve, the will, the courage of men has been beyond anything ever described in the story of this world. It is a matter of just boast to us as a people that in such a trial Britain fought better in the last year of the War than she ever fought before—put forth greater strength, displayed greater daring and endurance; her blows were more vigorous, more mighty, more shattering, more terrible in their effect, than ever before.
      I, therefore, move that Vote of Thanks to these gallant men to whom we owe so much. And we should not forget the women—those who in great peril nursed the wounded, and saved thousands of lives by their tender care, and the women of the other Auxiliary Services whose aid was invaluable in enabling the soldiers to carry through their terrible duty.
      I am not going to particularise branches of the Service, nor to attempt to summarise their achievements. They are too well known. They are written deep on the hearts of the people of this country. I will only just refer to two or three matters to which, I think, I should fail in my duty if I did not call attention before I sit down. The first is the debt we owe to the Dominions and the Dependencies of the Empire for the timely, effective, and powerful aid they rendered. As to the Dominions, you have only to peruse the list of the victories won by the gallant troops who came from overseas—a truly dazzling list—in order to realise the greatness of the share which they have in the happy issue of the War. I am sure we rejoice as much here as they do that the Dominions, through the valour of their sons, have won a permanent place in the fraternity of nations. As to India, by her remarkable contribution to our triumph, notably in the East, she has won a new claim to our consideration, a claim so irresistible that it ought to overpower, and must overpower, all prejudice and timidity which may stand in the way of her progress.
      This is the Motion of Thanks to the fighting Services. But I must mention two other classes. First of all, there are the workers to whose skill and industry we owe the celerity, the efficiency, and the completeness with which our Armies were equipped. Never has the skill of our experts—of the leaders and organisers of

      407
      industry and of our mechanics—been shown to as great advantage. There is one word I should like to say about them, and it is well now to recall it. These skilled mechanics volunteered in such numbers that it was the first duty of those who were to undertake the organisation and equipment for the Army to bring back as many as they possibly could. That was true in the ship building trade, and in the engineering trade; it was true especially in the mines, and this I am not ashamed to say, if anything could add to the reluctance with which we should enter into any conflict with men in any of these trades, the memory of that fact will make us even more reluctant.
      Then, may I say one word about the multitude of silent people—the men and women, too often bereaved, who quietly bore the racking strain of anxiety in their homes. These have been years where in millions of homes in this land every knock at the street door sent a shudder of fear to anxious hearts. It was too often a messenger of desolation. It can only be known in the Great Day what agony this War has brought to millions of homes. It will only then be known what measure of silent heroism has been displayed in enduring that grief. And here and now and to-day it is well to remind the land that all classes have suffered alike. There is no class which can point the finger of reproach to another. All have borne their share. The glory of a common achievement shines on all ranks in this land. The shadow of a common grief alone dims the lustre of that glory, and a nation whose men and women have for years shown such qualities in the hour of their country's need will show it yet again, if the need come with subtler, and, therefore, more formidable perils, to save the Motherland from danger.
      Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am quite sure the House would have been well content to leave this Resolution with the speech of the Prime Minister and the noble words which you, Sir, have read with such taste and feeling from the Chair. None of us in this House would attempt to rival the Prime Minister in the powers of speech by which he has so finely shown to-day the feeling of all of us with regard to the services to which he has alluded. But there is, at any rate, one thing which every one of us can claim—that in the feelings of the heart we are all his equal. In vain would we interrogate the past for the
      408
      record of such a War as this, and I, on behalf of these who associate themselves with me in this House, wish to tender to the Prime Minister our thanks for the generous reference to Mr. Asquith and to Sir Edward Grey who, with him, bore the burden of the early days of this titanic conflict.
      The scope of the Resolution which you, Sir, have read shows that this was, in truth, a nation in arms, united in a common purpose, not only for the defence of this country and the Empire, but for humanity and freedom the world over. There was one point which the Prime Minister lightly touched upon, and of which we are all exceedingly proud, and that was the rally to the Colours of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force by the men of this land. It must for ever be an outstanding record in the proud annals of this country that no fewer than 4,500,000 to 5,000,000 men volunteered their services. But that is not the whole of the record of the volunteers for our Forces. There were, in spirit, volunteers by the terns of thousands among the men who came within the scope of the Military Service Acts. I can speak with, perhaps, a certain amount of authority in regard to that, and I do not hesitate to say that the great majority of the men who came within the scope of the Military Service Acts were men who were little, if at all, distinguished in spirit from those who volunteered their services before March, 1916.
      Perhaps the House will pardon me one slight personal experience which is indicative of thousands of others. One morning a working man came to my tribunal. He was engaged in a necessary trade, and was the father of six children, all under twelve. This is what he said: "After last night's air raid I wish to withdraw my appeal. I must join up." He was only an illustration of the spirit which swept through this land before and after 1916. All classes of society, rich and poor, working men and employers—their deeds gentled all conditions in their service for this country, and we proudly claim this for all our men on land, in the air, and at sea, that by their deeds and, in the words of the Resolution, "their good humour, their clemency and the patience of their bearing, they were, in truth, gentlemen-at-arms. Never was it so true. The leaders of the men in command of all ranks gladly acknowledge that whatever criticism may come to be passed on tactics and strategy, things done or

      409
      things left undone, there is one verdict already given which will only gather strength as the years roll on—"the men were magnificent."
      I should like to say one or two words in reference to our debt to the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. How delightful it is to notice that every officer of high rank in the Navy never makes a speech with reference to the doings of the War, without reckoning as comrades the men of the Mercantile Marine. The duty of the Navy, linked with the Mercantile Marine, was one of terrible responsibility. There might have been, and there were, great reverses on land, but our commanders at sea knew that a great reverse at sea would not only cripple our sure defence, but also carry with it disaster to the Allied cause. The Navy was the keystone of the Allied arch, and the feed pipe of every army in every land. The Navy and the Mercantile Marine have been, in every sense, fully worthy of the finest traditions of British seamen. Criticisms may come and go, but the result tells, and it is this—the open sea and Scapa Flow. As to the Army and the Air Forces, we know that the great commanders shared with the men those splendid qualities of patience, of equal mind in adversity, with a back-to-the-wall tenacity, and a cool courage which at last gave them the opportunity and the power for the irresistible rally. I desire to pay tribute to Marshal Foch. This is a family gathering, but there is no more welcome guest than the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies. His modesty, his courage, and his genius shone out from the first days of the War, and we, the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament here assembled, acclaim him, Marshal of France, one of the true captains of her soul. He was the French spirit incarnate, and never was it more shining than in those days of the disasters on the Marne, when he sent that message back to Paris," My centre gives, my right recoils, situation excellent, I am attacking."
      I pass on to say one or two words in addition to the splendid tribute which the Prime Minister paid to the dead and to the sorrowing living—to those who went forth to return no more, save to the shattered homesteads of the hearts of those who loved them. They gave their lives; they did not lose them. They gave them as a precious gift, a priceless heritage to this country of ours and to the
      410
      world's freedom. If a man die, shall he live again? Truly these men and these women live to-day. Sowing there has been, what shall the harvest be? That is for us. They have fulfilled the last duty which came to them. We start into the autumn, and soon this winter shadows will be falling around us. We go into social gloom, but I have not the slightest doubt that if the spirit which animated these men who gave their lives and the men Jiving to-day who fought for us, is still with us, we shall in the troublous days of peace be worthy of a nation which was born in adversity, nurtured in sacrifice and reared on great ideals.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to associate my Friends and myself with the Vote of Thanks so eloquently moved by the Prime Minister. The services which have been rendered by our men to the country and to the whole civilised world are such as to make it very difficult for one to find suitable language in which to adequately express our appreciation and our thanks. I am certain that I shall find general assent when I say that I am convinced that if our men had not made such a magnificent stand in the course of these five years that this nation, as we have known it, could not have continued to exist. Not only was this nation engaged in a life and death struggle during that time, but it was also a life and death struggle for the freedom and integrity of all the other nations of the earth. Like the two previous speakers I have no intention of taking up much of the time of the House. Like my right hon. Friend 1 could have contented myself by leaving it to the Prime Minister, because he has very adequately expressed our thanks, but the position might have been misunderstood if we had not briefly expressed our appreciation of the services rendered by the various sections of His Majesty's forces. First in order comes the Vote of Thanks to the men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines. We as a nation can look back over our country's history for long centuries of noble achievement, dauntlessly performed, in all the circumstances of fell and difficulty, but there is no past period in the annals of our naval service where the service rendered by the men shone with brighter lustre than during the past five years.
      I also desire to pay my tribute to the land forces, and when I say the land forces I include all who have been mentioned by the Prime Minister. The

      411
      courage and the valour of our land forces during the trying period of the War have been beyond all praise. Here again we can only say that the traditions of the British Army have been maintained in full, and the records of high and lofty courage for which the soldiers of our land have always been famous, have been upheld during that time. Our debt of thanks would not be fully paid if we did not specially thank our kith and kin from the Dominions beyond the seas. From all corners of the earth our kith and kin came spontaneously and promptly to the call of the Motherland. The bond of blood and of race has stood the severest test, and has come successfully through, in the common struggle against tyranny and military aggression. No chapter of British history will ever be more splendid than that which records the part played by the men from our Overseas Dominions in the terrible world drama that we were forced into.
      I should like also to join in expressing our reverence in regard to the men who have fallen in this great conflict; the men who died that this country might live. The price of victory has been a heavy one. There are few homes that have escaped paying part of the toll. Many of us, so far as this life is concerned, never again can hope to have "the time and the place and the loved one together." I should like also, in addition to expressing my reverence to the men who have made the supreme sacrifice, to join with the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend in conveying a message of sympathy and condolence to the homes to which these men belonged. I am going to make a suggestion for the serious consideration of His Majesty the King and of the Government so far as the relatives and dependants of the fallen men are concerned. I understand that under past Army conditions the dependants of the men who have fallen have not got the general medal that is handed out at the close of each campaign.
      The PRIME MINISTER: We will look into that.
      Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that that is the position, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever the precedent may be, this should be remedied at the earliest possible moment. I make a further suggestion, and it is this, that in addition to the general decoration for the
      412
      campaign there ought to be a special decoration instituted and given to the dependants of our men who have fallen. We have many special decorations in connection with the naval and military forces, and the one I am now suggesting ought to receive the serious consideration of His Majesty the King and of the Government. I know there has been some talk about giving a plaque to each of the homes whence came the men who have fallen in the conflict. I do not think that that is a proposition that will meet with general acceptance. I think that the dependants, the wives, the mothers, and the fathers of the men who have fallen would rather have the decorations that are given out to the men who have more fortunately lived, and also that which I am suggesting to the consideration of the Prime Minister. There is another consideration. We on these benches gladly recognise and gladly pay tribute to all sections of the Services, from the Field-Marshal right down until we reach the ranks, and I believe that we shall have the general assent of the men of the higher command when we say that but for the valiant service of the rank and file, rendered in trying and uncomfortable conditions, our victory would not have been as complete as it is. My suggestion is this, that special pains should be taken by the Government to see that the men who have come back are provided for, amply and generously. At the present moment there are many hundreds of these men walking the streets who cannot find employment. It is true that they are getting the grant, but that is not, in our opinion, sufficient recompense, and my suggestion to the Prime Minister is that, if private enterprise cannot find sufficient openings to employ these men at remunerative work, a special effort should be made by the Government to give effect to this.
      There is one other suggestion. I think that in this time of national rejoicing a general amnesty should be agreed to by the Government. Take the Army and Navy alone for the moment, and what is the condition? You have quite a large number of men who, during the course of these five years, have got various terms of imprisonment for breaches of Army or Navy discipline. What were the conditions in which these men came up against the Regulations of the Navy and of the Army? Not one in a thousand, perhaps would ever have been in either the Army or the Navy but for the call of the coun-

      413
      try. They were for the first time brought into contact with Regulations of which they had no knowledge, and which frequently they had broken before they were aware that their action was a breach of these Regulations. Some of these men are still in prison. The prison doors ought to be opened, and these men should be allowed to go free in whatever part of the world they are. The general amnesty in this general time of rejoicing should appeal even to a wider range than the men connected with the Army or the Navy. Unless those who for political offences are still languishing in prison have been guilty of some very serious offence, I would humbly suggest to the Prime Minister that they ought to be included. It might even be made wider than that. In a time of national rejoicing I think that the nation could well afford to make the amnesty apply to all those who are in prison with the exception of those who are in prison for offences that could not in a reasonable way be included in such an amnesty. I hope that the suggestions which I have made will receive the serious consideration of the Government; and I conclude by associating myself in the fullest way with all that has been said by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend by way of thanking all who have contributed to bringing our country successfully through the most trying period that it has ever had to face.
      Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I merely desire in two or three sentences to identify those with whom I am associated with the Resolution that has been submitted by the Prime Minister. I am quite sure that that Resolution and the speech which we have heard absolutely and entirely represent the heart and mind of this House. And I would remind the House that five years ago this week this House was called upon to endorse the very drastic action that the Cabinet had taken on that occasion. The House then, by the expression of opinion from all parties, was unanimous in endorsing the action which the Cabinet had taken. And it is a very remarkable fact that after the most dangerous and menacing times of our history, spread over a period of five years, the House of Commons is found to-day as unanimous as it was then in giving expression to these Resolutions that have been moved by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has called attention to three very great salient facts with regard to those who have fallen.
      414
      He has talked of the alacrity with which, though we are a peace-loving nation, our lads jumped to the Colours. He has talked about their heroism. He has spoken of their good humour. Their heroism I am certain is one of the greatest revelations to the world. And I am certain that, whatever view we had taken of our great town population, there was not one of us who dreamt that our lads were capable of such magnificent heroism, not in isolated cases but in cases by the thousand and the hundreds of thousands. How great has been their heroism has been well attested by our conversations with those who have had the honour of winning the Victoria Cross. Talk to them as I have talked to some hundreds of them, and ask, "What have you had this for?" and they say, "I do not know why I have had it. I do not know why it was given to me. I only did my duty as did a hundred other boys, every one of whom deserved the Victoria Cross as much as I have deserved it. "That, I am perfectly certain, reveals the great heroism that has characterised the whole of the ranks, whether drawn from this country or from our Colonies. The Prime Minister has spoken about their good humour, which also has been a revelation to us. Our boys have faced death, ugly wounds and disease with a smile on their faces all the time. It is because we have a great reserve of that good humour which was found among those who have fallen that I for one have no fear for the future, but believe that we are going to reap the fruits of our great victory in a prosperous peace and in a better industrial system. I have great pleasure in identifying my Friends and myself in the most cordial way with the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to say a few words byway of reinforcing one part of the eloquent meed of praise paid by the Prime Minister to those who have so well deserved it for their conduct in the War. The Prime Minister has spoken with his unmatched eloquence of the great deeds performed by the Mercantile Marine. Among these I am sure he included the fishermen. But the fishermen themselves, by the nature of their calling, are apt to differentiate themselves from both the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, and I only rise to say a few sentences in their praise which, I am sure, the Prime Minister himself would re-echo—
      The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: —and to express the belief that with out those men victory at sea would have been impossible, and that we cannot exaggerate in any way the great debt which we owe to them for their matchless courage throughout the whole War, un trained and unprepared as they were.
      Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

      FIELD-MARSHAL FOCH.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
      "That this House accords its profound sense of admiration and gratitude for the supreme services rendered to the British nation by Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France, as. Generalissimo of the Allied Armies, in which great position he displayed a military genius worthy of the foremost captains in history:
      That Mr. SPEAKER do signify the said Resolution to Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France."
      Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  King's Message [5th August] read.
  [Message from His Majesty (Naval, Military, and Air Forces) (Grants to Officers).]
  Motion made, and. Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £585 000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to those officers who commanded and directed His forces by sea, on land, and in the air, in recognition of their eminent services during the late War, namely:

  Navy:

  £

  Admiral of the Fleet, Sir David Beatty

  100,000

  Admiral of the Fleet, Viscount Jellicoe

  50,000

  Admiral Sir Charles E. Madden

  10,000

  Admiral Sir F. C. Doveton Sturdee

  10,000

  Rear-Admiral Sir John de Robeck.

  10,000

  Vice-Admiral Sir Roger J. B. Keyes

  10,000

  Commodore Sir Reginald J. Tyrwhitt

  10,000

  Army:

  Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig

  100,000

  Field-Marshal Viscount French

  50,000

  Field-Marshal Sir Edmund Allenby

  50,000

  Field-Marshal Sir H. Plumer

  30,000

  Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson

  10 000

  General Sir Henry Rawlingon

  30,000

  £

  General The Hon. Sir Julian Byng

  30,000

  General Sir Henry Horne

  30,000

  General Sir William Robertson

  10 000

  General Sir William Birdwood

  10,000

  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Maurice Hankey

  25,000

  Air:

  Air Vice-Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard

  10,000"

  5.0 P.M.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is an honoured tradition of this country that it rewards liberally those who have rendered it conspicuous and distinguished services in time of peril, and that, I venture to say, is a sound tradition for a country. Ingratitude chills the ardour of service, and no State has long thriven which does not display its gratitude to those who have served it well in its time of peril. It was really one of the marked features of the distinction between Rome and Carthage, and the lesson is not without its value. I am proud of the fact that the pensions we have voted in this House—the scale of pensions—to the men who have served us well in the field and in the air and on the sea, is incomparably the most generous in Europe. I think the amount aggregates £98,000,000 a year, which is half the whole of the national expenditure before the War. There is no scale in Europe which compares with it, and I am proud of it. But we do wisely, we shall do wisely, if we accept this Motion, in maintaining the tradition that exceptional rewards should be given to those who have borne exceptional responsibilities with exceptional success. That is the proposition which I would invite the Committee to accept.
  The Duke of Wellington had voted to him two pensions, in the aggregate £4,000 a year, for three lives, and after the Battle of Waterloo a sum of £500,000 was voted to him. That was for him alone. Lord Wolseley had £25,000 voted to him for the Ashanti campaign, and £30,000 for the Egyptian campaign. Those were moved by Mr. Gladstone, who was, undoubtedly, one of the most rigid and stern of all the great economists. Lord Roberts had £12,500 voted to him for the Afghan campaign and £100.000 for the Boer War. Lord Kitchener had £30,000 voted to him for the Soudan campaign, and £50,000 for the Boer War. Those two were moved by another famous and very rigid economist, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. That was the view taken in the past of the kind of reward that ought to be accorded to men who had rendered services of this kind to

  417
  the country. In magnitude, in fateful-ness for this country, there is no comparison between those wars and the War which has just come to a conclusion. Therefore, the sums which we are inviting the Committee to agree to err in comparison, not on the side of over liberality, but quite the reverse, and we have come to the conclusion that the precedents of the past should rather be fined down, not because we regard the merits of the men to whom we are going to invite the House to accord the vote as being less in comparison than those whose names I have quoted, but because we had to have regard to the gigantic burdens of the community. I need hardly tell the Committee that our greatest difficulty was in choosing—a very difficult and delicate task. There were so many who have done well, there were so many who have rendered brilliant and even dazzling service, and our difficulty is not in recommending the names which are down in the list, but in confining the appeal to the munificence of Parliament to these names I may say a few words about each of these men. There are so many that I cannot possibly do justice to any of the individuals which are mentioned. Therefore, if I say a few sentences in respect to men of great and outstanding merit it must not be regarded as in the least an indication that I do not consider that a good deal more might be legitimately said to the Committee on the subject.
  I, first of all, naturally, choose Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. I have already spoken in this House, and at some length, on his great qualities. His tenacity of purpose, his dauntlessness in the face of what looked like disaster, make him an embodiment of the race which is so proud to claim him amongst its sons. But there is another quality of Sir Douglas Haig, which is known well only to those who know him well, and that is the readiness with which he has always been prepared to subordinate self to the demands of his country. That was never more clearly manifested than in the way in which he accepted the command of Field-Marshal Foch over the British forces which hitherto had been commanded by Sir Douglas Haig. There have been great men in the past who have rendered distinguished service to their country in this and in other lands, and who never hesitated to risk their lives in rendering that service, but who, somehow, failed in loyalty when it was a question of personal pride or professional
  418
  pride. Sir Douglas Haig has been as ready to sacrifice his own pride of position as he has always been ready to run the risk of his life. For that especially we honour and respect him. After all, modesty adds a cubit to the stature of the tallest man.
  I would like to say a word now about Lord French, and I should like to say that in this day of crowning triumph we must not forget the day of small things—the time when Field-Marshal French, then Sir John French, had to lead few men, fine men, great men, never finer soldiers quitted these shores to fight for the Flag, but they were few against overpowering odds, inadequately equipped against the most finely equipped Army in Europe. He fought one of the six decisive battles in this War. That is too often forgotten. Sir John French led the British Army in one of the six decisive battles and campaigns of a war which produced hundreds of great battles. He fought the battle of Ypres— it is now clear from the German account of it—against overpowering odds. He won it. Had it been lost, the War would have taken a different turn. From the moment he won it, the faith in German military supremacy was irretrievably doomed. It is, therefore, meet that we should now, when German militarism is shattered beyond recovery, remember the great commander who, with small means, fought during the first year of the War and won a battle which covered the British Army with honour.
  The name of General Allenby will be ever remembered as that of the brilliant commander who fought and won the last and most triumphant of the crusades. It was his good fortune, aided by his skill, to be able to bring to a glorious end an enterprise which absorbed the chivalry of Europe for centuries. We forget now that the military strength of Europe was concentrated for generations upon this purpose, and concentrated in vain. A British Army under the command of General Allenby achieved it and achieved it finally.
  I have spoken quite recently of Sir Henry Wilson, one of the most gifted soldiers this country has ever possessed. I will add only one word to what I have said. His vision and organising gifts constituted one of the most treasured assets of this country in the trying days of 1918, and no list would be complete without Sir Henry Wilson. As for Sir William

  419
  Robertson, his services were rendered in the all-important field of organisation. It is he we have to thank for the fact that the General Staff was so well organised and rendered such great service, especially during the last two or three years of the War. He certainly deserves a name in this great list. As for Air Vice-Marshal Trenchard, he, by his energy and daring and drive and imagination and magnetism, which make for great leadership in war, made the Air Force become the powerful and formidable fighting machine that it was.
  I have another name, the name of one who took no part in battle, but who was as essential to our success in this War as any name—I mean Sir Maurice Hankey. It is difficult for those who know to speak about Sir Maurice Hankey's services without appearing to exaggerate. His services were known only to a few, but none rendered greater service, and none, therefore, is more worthy of honour and of thanks. If any Member of this House will take the trouble to ask the leaders in any sphere of this War or. of the Peace about the services of Sir Maurice Hankey, they will realise what I mean. Let them ask naval leaders or military leaders, let them ask M. Clemenceau or President Wilson or Signor Orlando, and they will all bear the same testimony. He was the first to recognise before this War that if a great war ever came it would be a matter not merely of fighting men, but for the organisation of the whole sources of a country, and he it was who initiated, organised, and inspired that war-book that is one of the most remarkable productions any man could peruse. Going through it now, one can see how he foresaw things which were perhaps not visible except to very searching minds like his at the time, and which have now become part of the horrible realities of war. He served under my predecessor for a good many years, and I am permitted to read a letter Mr. Asquith wrote to him in November of last year, after the signature of the Armistice. This is Mr. Asquith's letter:
  "No one knows as well as I do how much we owe to you for our (ignorantly derided) prewar preparation, nor the extent and value of your daily, and almost hourly, contribution during the first two and a half years to every measure in all spheres that was thought out and done. I know that you have continued to the end, under constant strain which cannot be measured to render the same invaluable service. I
  420
  should like you to know that in my judgment you have been in a true sense what Carnot was called, 'The Organiser of Victory.'"
  I am in accord with every word of that. He refused a highly remunerative offer in order to remain in the service of Britain. If Sir Maurice Hankey's name were left out of this list I should feel ashamed of it. There is no one who has a better right to be in it, and there is no one I recommend to the House with less hesitation.
  With regard to the Army Commanders whose names are very well known and whose achievements are known, no Army ever had better fighting commanders, and those who take an interest in the history of war know how much a Commander-in-chief depends upon his fighting commanders, and how much they contributed to Wellington's success in the Peninsula and to Napoleon's success in his great European campaign. As a matter of fact when Napoleon was deprived of the support of his great Marshals he failed, and Sir Douglas Haig and Field-Marshal Foch were the first to recognise that it would have been impossible, especially in 1918, to have turned the tide of battle had it not been for the brilliant leadership of General Plumer, General Home, General Byng, General Rawlinson, and afterwards General Birdwood, and I certainly commend their names to the generosity of the House.
  I come to the Fleet. As for Admiral. Beatty everybody will recognise that he is worthy of the highest traditions of British seamanship. By his great fighting qualities in the War he established finally the-supremacy of the British Navy over its foes. There is no bettor tribute to his leadership than the fact that the fleet of the foe, having contested that leadership once, thought it wise to avoid putting it to any further test. As for Admiral Jellicoe, his services before the War and during the War were incalculable. His chief work was the work of organisation, not so well known to the public but just as essential to the success of a fleet in war as that of the fighting leaders who went into battle. Those are the services that Admiral Jellicoe rendered to the British Navy. As for Admiral Sturdee, the Committee will remember the brilliant action he fought off the Falkland Islands by which he rid the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic of raiders who interrupted our commerce and threatened to put an end to it for some years. As for Admiral

  421
  de Roebeck his services in the Ægean are well known. Admiral Tyrwhitt, who commanded the torpedo flotillas on the East coast is the outstanding representative of that special branch of naval service which embodies that ceaseless vigilance ever watching, over pursuing, ever chasing, ever striking, night and day, summer and winter, fair weather and foul, which ultimately ended in completely baffling the designs of the foe. Then there is Sir Roger Keys. His name will be ever quoted in naval history as the chief figure in one of those dramatic exploits which enrich the story of the Fleet and enter into the character of the Fleet. Those are the stories which attract children and attract the human mind when impressions sink deep into it and remain firmly in it, and this is one of the stories that will help to build up the character of the race. No list would be complete without Sir Roger Keys, the hero of one of the most dramatic exploits of the War. There is also Admiral Madden who undoubtedly rendered invaluable aid in the organisation of the Grand Fleet and of the Navy.
  That I think completes the list. I think it will be agreed that they are all men who deserve well of the bounty of the House. I have taken the trouble to examine the precedents for grants of this character covering two or three centuries, and I think if Members of the House will take the same trouble they will find that we have fallen short of precedent, if at all. I think the Members of this Committee would do well, remembering this tradition, which is an honourable and high one, not to depart from it, and I therefore, remembering the great services these people rendered, and remembering what might have befallen this country if we had not had skilful leadership, earnestly say to the House that this is but a small part of the recognition which we owe to these great men.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £385,000.
  I desire to associate myself with all that has been said by the Prime Minister regarding the splendid services which have been rendered by the officers named by him, and we realise as clearly as the Prime Minister the value of the services rendered by those gallant officers. At the same time, we do not take the view that those services can be measured by a money payment. We are not against a moderate sum being given in recognition of the in-
  422
  valuable services rendered, but we think that the sum given should be a less excessive amount than the amount named the Resolution moved by the Prime Minister. We think that the granting of such a sum is out of all proportion to the monetary rewards that have been given to the rank and file, and we recognise that the granting of such a sum as has been moved by the Prime Minister will give us a very powerful lever to use in trying to secure a more generous recognition of the services of the rank and file than has been secured up to the present time. Until we are able to secure a more generous recognition for these parties, we are strongly of the view that the sum that has been moved by the Prime Minister is an excessive sum. I want it to be clearly understood that we do not in any degree seek to minimise the value of the services that have been rendered by these distinguished officers. We recognise that as fully as anyone else, but we believe that these distinguished officers themselves would be the very first to place a proper value on the services rendered by the rank and file. As a matter of fact, I think we have had a striking example of that in the case of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig within the last few weeks, and I want to pay my tribute to him for the invaluable service he has rendered in presenting the claims of the. Service men, particularly in the rank and file. But until we get a more generous recognition of the services of the rank and file, we are against the granting of such an excessive sum as has been moved by the Prime Minister. Not only looking at the payments that have been made to the rank and file in a general way do we say that their services should have been given more recognition than has been given up to the present, but, in addition to that, there are many cases yet where no recognition, so far as payment of money is concerned, has been made, and until these cases are fairly and generously treated, I do not think the Government is well advised in, moving the sum that is named in the Resolution of the Prime Minister.
  If one cared, many examples could be given to prove the statement which I have made, but I do not want to weary the Committee by quoting numerous examples, as one could, of cases where service has not been recognised in the way that we think it should be, and I want to confine myself to giving only two cases on this occasion. A lot has been said during

  423
  the afternoon about the valuable services that has been rendered by the men of the Mercantile Marine, and I think that neither this House nor the country can pay too high a tribute to the value of the services of these men. But for their services the work of the Royal Navy would have been made much heavier, and the life of the nation itself would have been endangered. In the course of the services that have been rendered by the men of the Mercantile Marine, my attention has been called to the following incident. A boy, whose home is at Burnley, went to sea at the age of sixteen in the course of the War, and on his first voyage his ship was torpedoed. At the moment the ship was torpedoed he was right down in the hold of the ship and was seriously injured. He attempted to crawl on to the deck to escape with the other men, but just as he was leaving the hold in great difficulty and danger he saw that one of his fellow seamen was still in the hold and more seriously injured than himself. With great difficulty, this lad got hold of his fellow seaman, and after a fierce struggle was able to bring him to the deck, along with himself, and to put him in the position of being rescued by a destroyer. This boy was so seriously injured that he is now at home a cripple, and his widowed mother, who was dependent upon him, and himself are not in receipt of any monetary reward for the gallant service that he rendered on the occasion to which I am drawing the attention of the Committee. The second example I want to give is this. I have in my hand a telegram which I have received this afternoon from a number of demobilised soldiers, who wire me that they are unable to reconcile the lip-service of thanks to the forces with the fact that they have been deprived of their war gratuity. They ask your sympathy and support to-day so as to bring this question before the House, and they further protest against the awarding of huge financial grants to officers of high rank for doing their duty whilst withholding the beggarly pittance from the other ranks, who also did their duty.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard of these cases for the first time, and, like my right hon. Friend, I have not had the opportunity of investigating them. The first case struck me very much. I cannot understand why that gallant boy was not compensated, and I promise that investiga-
  424
  tion shall be made into the case. I do not quite understand the second, but if my right hon. Friend will give me the particulars, I promise to see that both cases are thoroughly looked into, because certainly no man who has suffered injury in the cause of his country should go uncompensated.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for the promise he has made in respect of the two cases I have named, and I will certainly see that he gets the fullest particulars 1 can give him regarding them; but I can assure him and the Committee that, while I have only given two examples, there are many such cases that can be brought to the notice of the Government and the Prime Minister. Surely, before the Committee grants such a very large sum of money as is involved in the Resolution that has been moved by the Prime Minister, bare justice ought to be done to the men of the rank and file, who have done their duty as splendidly and nobly as it was possible for any officer to do it. We are going to take this opportunity of moving a reduction of £385,000 in the Vote that has been moved by the Prime Minister, leaving the sum of £200,000 to be divided, in the same proportions as are provided for in the Prime Minister's Resolution, among the gallant officers named. We hope that the Committee will support us in this Motion. If one cared to give elaborate reasons for moving such a substantial reduction in the sum named, of course we could deal with it from the point of view of the financial position of the country at the present moment. That itself is a very strong reason indeed for the strictest economy being exercised, but we take what appears to our minds to be the higher reason, and we say that until the rank and file are treated more generously than they have been up to the present, we disagree with what appears to us to be the moving of such an excessive sum as a monetary reward to those gallant officers.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I do not think the Leader of the Labour party will get much support in the Division Lobby. He proposes to reduce the payments to Sir Douglas Haig and Sir David Beatty to about the level of an Ashanti campaign after all the great services which they haves rendered. I rose mainly for this purpose. I wanted in the first place to say to the Government that we did not get the information in the Vote Office in the usual way—and I think

  425
  we ought to pay respect to the forms of the House—as to the details of these different Grants. They were read from the Chair, but there is no White Paper or Blue Paper, and they are not circulated with the Votes, nor are they on the Order Paper. It is only a detail, but it is a growing practice, and I think attention ought to be called to it. [A copy of "Votes and Proceedings," 5th August, containing details of the Grants, was produced]. I must respectfully apologise, but I asked at the Vote Office and looked through the Order Paper, and I did not find it. My next point is this: The Prime Minister said ho had studied the records for 200 years. He will find that in those 200 years it was the invariable practice of this House to give Votes of Thanks to distinguished generals and admirals, but we are not doing so to-day. We thank the Services, but we are not giving any Vote of Thanks either to Sir David Beatty or Sir Douglas Haig. Among those records he will find that in 1814 and 1816 a Vote of Thanks was voted by this House to the Duke of Wellington. A Committee of the House waited on the Duke of Wellington and subsequently the Duke of Wellington attended on the floor of this House, was accommodated with a seat on the left of the Bar, and then returned his thanks, and the only other speaker was Mr. Speaker Abbott. I think that gave a formality to our Vote of Thanks, and I do not know why the precedent is being departed from now. I, for one, would like to seethe thanks of this House given to the principal commanders by land and by sea, and if thought desirable that they should return their thanks either by letter read on the floor of this House or in person at the Bar.
  I want just to refer to two of the naval officers—Sir Charles Madden and Sir David Beatty. I think nothing moved the admiration of the nation more than when Sir David Beauty, a junior officer, was put over the heads of admirals like Sir Charles Madden. They served under him, and gave him the most loyal, wholehearted support. They were senior to him, but it is known throughout the Grand Fleet how splendidly Sir Charles Madden seconded all Sir David Beatty's efforts, and no two men could have worked more harmoniously together. As regards Sir David Beatty, it is difficult indeed to find words which are adequate to the abilities which he has shown in this War, and the great courage and spirit which he enthused into all ranks of the
  426
  Service. Merely as a naval student, may I say in studying all that Sir David Beatty has done, one feels exactly like the poet Keats when he read Homer—
  "Like some watcher of the skies,
  When a new planet swims into his ken."
  He is the one great naval discovery of the War, and I think the whole country may congratulate itself on the fact that they have a great naval genius still in the prime of life available for future service. It is a subject of regret that for some eight months Sir David Beatty's services have not been utilised in this country. I have never been able to understand the reason why. The Prime Minister quoted from Collingwood's letters, and I want to show the responsibility which Sir David Beatty has borne compared with the responsibility which Collingwood bore. Writing to his wife in 1808, Collingwood said:
  "I seldom read the newspapers, having quite enough of war without them. I have now as large a fleet as was ever employed by England, consisting of thirty ships of the line and eighty ships of war of different sorts. You may easily conceive that in the common occurences of such a fleet, I have not much time to amuse myself."
  He spoke of that fleet of thirty ships of the line and eighty ships of war as the largest fleet that ever was employed from England, but the responsibility of Sir David Beatty far transcended that. I suppose if the German High Sea Fleet had come out, Sir David Beatty's Fleet would have been considerably more than 200 ships of war, in addition to a large number of aeroplanes and various other craft. That takes no account of the various mine flotillas and armed merchant ships, and so forth. One of the greatest qualities of Sir David Beatty was the way he enthused other people. He has some of the qualities of radium, which gives its qualities to surrounding bodies. Sir David Beatty, in the same way, used to draw the very best out of the officers and men under his command, and the whole Service will regard itself, I am quite sure, as honoured in the title which has been given to Sir David Beatty, and the Grant which this House, as a recognition, is going to make to him.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I only regret that any discussion has arisen at all on this subject of Grants to these distinguished officers who have led our Fleets. our Armies, and our Air Service to a victorious conclusion of this great War.

  427
  But, since a discussion has arisen, I feel bound to speak and oppose the Amendment. I had not the honour myself to serve in this War, so that anything I say is purely impersonal. The seaman, as a rule, is a humble-minded person, whose ideal is to do his duty and to seek for no special praise or exceptional reward for having done it. But he is very jealous of his reputation, and jealous that those who have merited some great distinction should have their due. I feel sure that the Navy, as a whole, will be satisfied with the thanks that this House has proferred them to-day as an expression of the gratitude of the whole of their countrymen. This Vote of Thanks conveys to the ranks and ratings of the Navy and the Royal Marines that, in the eyes of their countrymen, they have done their duty. They have upheld the glorious traditions of their great Service and they have maintained the reputation which they have inherited from generations of forbears. But, in addition to this, the ranks and ratings of the Navy, I am convinced, do expect that there shall be adequate, tangible reward to those who have led them during these four years of war to such a glorious conclusion as has been achieved by them. You cannot measure in terms of money the value to this country of a great commander in war; but of this I am convinced, that the Navy will expect nothing less in reward to their great leaders than has been put to this House by His Majesty the King, I presume on the advice of his Ministers. That, I feel sure, is the least the Navy expects should be given to these great leaders, and it is the least which is their due. I will make no reference whatever to the relative sums which are distributed to the different officers. There might be much comment on this, but I am satisfied that the decision of His Majesty is the correct one, and I will express no opinion whatever as to that.
  I do not think that the Mover of this Amendment really fully appreciates the great value to the country of leaders such as those who are included in the list of admirals, or to how few is given the genius of command so necessary in war. I do not think those who support this Amendment fully appreciate the appalling responsibility which is borne by a man in such a position as that of Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet during the War. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last referred to Sir David Beatty. Let me draw
  428
  the attention of the Committee to the other great Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, Sir John Jellicoe. Only those who know the circumstances can appreciate the terrible anxiety that Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was bearing in the winter of 1914–15, and let the Committee contemplate for a moment what the consequences would have been then if by any failure of his we had lost, even temporarily, the command of the sea. I refrain from elaborating on this. Suffice it that the genius, the endurance, and the indomitable courage of Sir John Jellicoe tided us over that most difficult and dangerous period—the most difficult and dangerous period to the Navy throughout the War. I have mentioned Sir John Jellicoe, but I take him as typical only. All the admirals included in this list come into the same category as does he. Their extraordinary genius in one direction or another, their endurance, their indomitable courage are common, I am happy to say, to all of them. But I think the Committee must realise, as must the whole country, that they have to be very thankful indeed that these great men were available to achieve the great service they did achieve when this country was in peril, and I think it is the bounden duty of this House to reward these great men, at least, to the extent that His Majesty the King has decided.
  Mr. INSKIP: I hope the House will grant me indulgence while I call attention, in as few words as I can use, to a disparity in the amounts that are proposed for these sailors and soldiers. I am very conscious of my unfitness to speak on the matter which I propose to lay before the Committee, and I do so unwillingly in the absence of at least one other who would have been more qualified than I am, but I think there is in these proposals one proposal at least which is so out of harmony with the general scheme that the Committee should have its attention called to it. It will be noticed that the Army commanders, with one exception, are to be awarded an equal sum. The one exception—that of Sir William Bird-wood, the distinguished general in an enterprise which will never be forgotten so long as the history of this War is told, and also the commander of the Fifth Army—is to be offered a sum out of all proportion to the other sums for the Army commanders. This is likely to cause—nay, I believe, has caused—dismay and amazement in the hearts of the

  429
  members of the Australian forces. It has been already said, and we all must appreciate it, that these Grants are not intended to reward the recipients. They are but to express the gratitude of the nation towards those great leaders. They do not pretend to stand as money's worth to the men who will receive them, and I am quite sure they will not be received in that spirit. They will be received as an inestimable possession, which nothing can buy. It is not because either £10,000 or £30,000 is sufficient or insufficient that I desire to call attention to this matter, but because there is, apparently, an attempt to distinguish between the value of the services which these gentlemen have given to the country, which, I think, is unfortunate, and is likely to divert the attention of the nation and of the Empire to what some people believe to be the money value of the service which they have performed.

  6.0 P.M.
  These Grants are likely to be successful in their purpose—which, as I have said, is offered as an earnest of gratitude to these men—in so far as they allow attention to be directed to the greatness of the occasion, the greatness of the deliverance, and the services of the men, from field-marshal to private, who wrought that deliverance for us. These Grants do honour not only to the men who receive them, but they do honour to the incomparable men led by those recipients. And, again, I repeat that I am not calling attention to the value in money's worth. What I want to call attention to is the difference in the grants proposed to be made to the commanders of the four Armies compared with the grant which it is proposed to make to the one man who commanded the Fifth Army. It may be said that the commander of the Fifth Army only commanded it for a short time. At any rate, he commanded that Army during some of the most notable months of the War. I gather that there has been no attempt to measure the services of the other four Army commanders in regard to the number of months' service. General Sir Julian Byng has been credited—and rightly credited, in my humble estimation—with the same award and the same position as those occupied by the other distinguished generals who preceded him. No attempt has been made to measure these services by the period over which they have been spread. I am, then, more at a loss when I observe that, to all appear-
  430
  ance, Sir William Birdwood's services have been measured by the length of the time over which they nave been performed. It cannot be said that it is the smallness of his services which merit the less amount. It cannot be said that his services are not so great as the services of others by reason of the inefficiency with which he performed the tasks allotted to him. It is certainly not to be said that the value of his services are less because he is held in less estimation or regarded with less devotion by the men whom he led ! There is not a general throughout this War who has been regarded with more honour and affection by the men whom he has the honour to command than General Bird-wood.
  There is another circumstance which leads me to think that this is an unfortunate distinction. Sir William Bird-wood, the Commander of the Fifth Army, it is true, was not engaged in some of the most serious fighting which took place in the last six months of the War. But he commanded that Army with a loyalty towards the other Armies which, I venture to think, enabled them to win the great victories which they did win. He trained division after division, with incomparable loyalty for the general cause, for other commanders. More than this, during the whole of that time Sir William Birdwood occupied the position that he now occupies of General Officer Commanding the Australian Forces. He made the appointments. He did everything that the General Commander of the Australian Forces then did, and now does. During the whole of that time he was Commander of the Fifth Army. He is regarded as the spokesman of the Australian Forces. They regard him with a devotion and affection which finds, I will not say, no parallel but, at any rate, no superior in the annals of our Army. Already the members of the Australian Forces are asking why this man is to be treated in a manner different from those who have occupied the position I have mentioned, and who have carried out their duties with only the same efficiency and devotion as has General Sir William Birdwood.
  The Leader of the Labour Opposition this afternoon attempted in a manner which, I am sure, will not commend itself to the House, to measure the services of these persons by distinguishing between £680,000 and £200,000 or £260,000 or thereabouts, as if it were possible to measure these services in money even

  431
  when you are offering money. It is for this very reason, although I feel myself unfitted to bring this matter to the attention of the Committee, that I venture to do so. It is for this very reason that there has been some attempt to measure the services of these five gentlemen, by placing four in one category and one in another, that I hope, even, at this moment, that the Government will find an opportunity of reconsidering the matter so that satisfaction may be given, not, indeed, to the gentleman concerned—because I am perfectly certain he cares for none of these things, and regards more highly the work he has performed, the position he has held, and his association with the Army. The Government, I trust, will look into this matter out of consideration for the feelings of the Australian forces. I have discharged what I conceive only to be my duty, the matter having been brought to my attention by some of those who most deeply feel it. I ask the Committee to consider whether they will not agree to any proposal which the Government may bring before them for placing Sir William Birdwood in a position which, I am sure, the House agrees he occupies in the estimation, not only of the citizens of another country, but in the estimation of the people of the great Dominion where his name is a household word.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am perfectly certain that when the Prime Minister brought this list down to the House he felt that he was leading the House into the temptation of listening to the kind of speech which the hon. Gentleman opposite has just made. Not that for a single moment I disagree with his speech, or would offer any opinion upon it; but immediately you bring down a list such as this, in which the Government seek to distinguish certain degrees of capability, capacity, and reward, amongst a large number of officers, you at once lay yourselves open to a discussion here about the qualifications of the officers. This, in my view, is to be regretted. There are two lines upon which this proposal can be discussed. There is the personal line beginning with Sir Douglas Haig and Admiral Beatty, and going through the list, attempting to assess the value of these men according to the views held by hon. Members; or there is the other method of dealing with the general principle upon which these awards should be made. I have neither
  432
  the information or knowledge of military, naval, or air points of view to assess the value of the work done by any of these hon. and gallant officers. Therefore, I propose, in the few remarks with which I shall trouble the House, to deal with the principle underlying the proposal laid before us. Incidentally. I may say that I do not think I can vote for the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, because, as has already been pointed out by the hon. Member who spoke last, the Leader of the Labour party is attempting to do the same thing as the Government. I shall be prepared to vote—and presently I will give reasons why I should be prepared to vote—against any Grant at all. People may not agree with that position, but, at any rate, it is a more intelligible position than the attempt to assess, either in the form the Government has done it, or in the form suggested by the Leader of the Labour party, the capacity of these men. I cannot for the life of me understand why a distinguished general or a distinguished admiral who has all the prizes of his profession open to him should receive these Grants at the close of a war. It is not done in any other profession. If a Law Officer of the Crown wins a case for the Crown he does not get a reward for it.
  An HON. MEMBER: He gets higher office!
  Mr. HOGGE: Hon. Members may be amused at the analogy, but let me finish. I trust I may be forgiven for these personal references, but I take it that these officers in the Army and Navy will during the remainder of their lives draw very large salaries.
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Mr. HOGGE: Take the post of field-marshal. He gets £5,000 a year for life.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Commander BELLAIRS: I think you are wrong. An Admiral of the Fleet. I know, gets £2,000 a year.
  Mr. HOGGE: I was under the impression it was £5,000 a year. But put it at the figure of £3,000. Call it, as some one hon. Member suggests, X pounds. It is not the amount of money that matters: it is the principle. In addition, mark you, to the amount of the salaries they receive, the promotion they receive, the honours they receive, and the further salaries they

  433
  will receive—in addition to the ordinary gratuities they will get for service, these men are getting what is here suggested. If you are going to deal with these men on the basis of principle that is a point I want to make. But lot us get back. You want to have war service gratuities proportionate throughout the whole of the Army and Navy. The Prime Minister was interested in a telegram which the Leader of the Labour party read to the House. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Labour party, it is apparent, understood the telegram, because the Prime Minister offered to go into the particular case that was mentioned in the telegram. There was no particular case mentioned in the telegram. What the telegram attempted to deal with is the question which has vexed the whole of the rank and file of the Army, as we very well know—the question of war service gratuities. The telegram said that the men were being deprived of their gratuities. It stated what was perfectly right, because with the introduction of the war service gratuity the Government has taken away from the man his ordinary service gratuity. Every man who is paid a war service gratuity to-day has deducted the service gratuity to which he was otherwise entitled. Does the House really realise what are the conditions given to the men who have made great the generals and admirals whom we are trying to honour this afternoon? I want to say incidentally that, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection to them having all the money if the basis is made proportional from top to bottom. Let us examine the injustice which, I think, the average rank and file are suffering under to-day. The average rank and file member of the forces, in the first place, is not so well off as the officer. Roughly speaking, the officer is entitled to a war service gratuity of 124 days' pay for his first year of service, and sixty-two days' pay for subsequent years' service—that is the officer who joined for this War. Incidentally, he is very much better off than is the Regular officer.
  An HON. MEMBER: No.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, he is. The Regular officer gats very much less war service gratuity. [An HON. MEMBER: "A pension!"] My hon. Friend reminds me of pensions. The Regular officer has rights of pension which the temporary officer does not have if he gets demobilised out of the Army at the present time. At the same
  434
  time there are many Regular officers in the Army who have suffered as much materially as the special category of men who join for the War, and there are temporary officers being demobilised from the Army who are receiving large gratuities, and who are no more entitled to them than the others who fought during the War. The officers are very much better off than the men. The average man gets £5 for his. first year and if he has been overseas, £6 for each subsequent year of service. If you take the average of four years which is the length of the War then the service gratuity amounts to £23. That is subject to deduction, and it is paid to the rank and file. I wonder if hon. Members have looked into the conditions under which other men were asked to re-enlist in the Army of Occupation, and if they have they will find this extraordinary anomaly, that a man re-enlists into the Army of Occupation who may not have seen any service, and may only be eligible for one year's service, but ho gets a bounty of £50 for four years new service with the Army of Occupation A soldier who has not carried the burden of the War and who remains in the Army of Occupation, and they are largely new soldiers, gets twice the amount of money, although he will be called upon practically to do no fighting as the man who was in the Army and served during the War, and who comes out with only £23.
  I have already mentioned what the-officer had. I am sorry that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House, nor the War Secretary is here to deal with this point which has been, put before, and it is really a vital matter upon which the Government have never given this House a satisfactory answer. If a man's gratuity was determined on the basis of the officer's gratuity, in the typical case I have taken, the man would receive not £23 but £46 10s., which is £3 10s. above the bounty which the Government pay to a man who has never fought, but who has re-engaged in the Army of Occupation. There would be some sense in an arrangement of that kind, but we cannot justify giving these large sums to special officers this afternoon and also to the officers of the Army a bigger gratuity proportionate to the man who has fought. We cannot justify it either to the country or to the men we asked to fight. If the Government really want a unanimous decision on the question of these rewards to the great generals and

  435
  admirals, let them come with a proposal which runs from the heads of the Army and Navy down to the ranks on a basis that can be defended. If you can defend it in the way I have suggested, you would then have your officer and man receiving his war service gratuity in proportion, and you would have your distinguished generals and admirals receiving their gratuity on the basis of their large pay, and the only other honour they require is that which the State has showered upon them quite deservedly up to the present. I suggest the Government will be doing themselves an injustice if they attempt to proceed this afternoon to force the House to a Division upon a topic in regard to which hon. Members are not divided, and that is the question of doing honour to these men. The Government, by this proposal, may force into the Division Lobby many hon. Members whoso votes might be misunderstood, but will not be misunderstood after the kind of speech which I have tried to make. I am quite certain that it is worth the Government's while to take a little time over this matter and bring their proposals more in accord with the sentiments not only inside but outside this House amongst millions of discharged and demobilised men.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret very much the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The question whether the men of the rank and file have been properly dealt with is not the point before us this afternoon, and we are not discussing the question of giving grants to officers or to generals as distinct from privates, but we are simply singling out for great honour some six or ten men from the three branches of the Service who performed services of super-eminent value to this country. I do not want to say it offensively, but I think hon. Members on the Labour Benches must remember that in the Army and the Navy no men are born equal.
  Mr. J. JONES: And all generals are not geniuses!
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that is true, but we are only offering this reward to certain picked generals, and I think everybody will agree that those who have been selected deserve exceedingly well of their country. But for the super-eminent work, the brain power, and the ability of those particular generals and admirals far more of the lives of our soldiers and
  436
  sailors would have been lost in this War. It is not a question between soldiers and generals, but of selecting for further high honour the men who have performed such wonderful service. I rose really to suggest to the Government two names which I rather think must have been omitted from the list before the House. The Prime Minister is not here, but I hope my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) will take a note of the two names I shall mention, and ask the Prime Minister whether they have not been left out by an oversight. The first I would mention is that of an Army Commander who fought with distinction and ability throughout the early part of the War. The Prime Minister has referred to the work of General French during the first battle of Ypres, and the House knows that General Sir Charles Munro commanded the Guards at Ypres, and subsequently became an Army Commander and commanded the First Army from the end of 1915 and all through 1916, and who went out on the instructions of the Government to Gallipoli to carry out the evacuation, which he did with a very small number of losses. Afterwards he resumed his post as Commander in the First Army, and he gave up that post in order to take up the position of Commander-in-Chief in India.
  I have no authority to speak on behalf of General Sir Charles Munro and I have had no communication with him. but I do feel that perhaps his name, because he is no longer commanding an Army Corps, has been overlooked; but every soldier who served under him will realise that he was equal in ability—and he earned the devotion of all ranks who served under him—to any of the other Army Commanders whose names are to be honoured to-day. There is another name which should be mentioned in this list, whether it be in the form of a money reward or those other honours which have been announced in this morning's papers—I refer to General Sir Frederick Sykes, of the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force has been a great object in my life for years past, and I have glorified in its successes during the War. The words which the Prime Minister spoke with regard to General Trenchard are none too high. We all know the magnificent work he has performed, and the inestimable service his spirit gave to the young men of the corps. They all swore by him, and when he gave an order they were always

  437
  ready to go and carry it out. I am very pleased to see the Under-Secretary for Air present this afternoon. He knows the very great services which General Sykes rendered at the time when General Trenchard resigned his post and General Sykes was appointed to take the command in the field, and the very good services which he performed. I ask whoever is taking charge on behalf of the Government to mention these two names to the Prime Minister, and if they have been overlooked I ask that the matter may be reconsidered, and I feel by including them you will be doing honour not merely to those generals but to the whole community at large.
  Captain LOSEBY: It strikes me to be very mean and ungenerous upon an occasion when the House has been called together for the purpose of doing honour to the Army as a whole through its great soldiers to indulge in what I venture to describe as nothing less than electioneering tactics in this House. I should not have risen but I think that I may claim to speak as one of the junior members of His Majesty's Army whom it is suggested have been wrongly treated. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hogge) complained that the junior officers, the privates, and the non-commissioned officers have not been singled out for rewards of equal magnitude. I say that whoever else you disgust when you criticise this Vote to-day you will disgust nobody more than the rank and file of the British Army, because the rank and file will consider they have been insulted when at any rate you venture to criticise these small rewards to their own great leaders.
  I would like to see any right hon. Gentleman go into a canteen filled with men who served, for instance, under General Plumer. They might not know General Birdwood very well, but let them go to their own Army Commanders and say, "My dear fellow, that money should have gone to you," and I venture to say that in that canteen inside five minutes there would be twenty broken heads. It must be apparent to everybody that we cannot reward the entire rank and file, because the numbers are so immense that it is quite impossible. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Then do not reward anybody!"] We might desire to give every man £1,000,000 each, but we cannot tackle a sum like £5,000,000,000,000. No, Sir.
  438
  All we can do, I venture to assert, is to honour the Army through its great representatives, and to frankly recognise that although we have only picked out ten we should have liked to have picked out 1,000 men. In regard to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) I am sure he will agree that no one is more anxious than I am to see pension and other grievances remedied. But this is not the occasion for the discussion of questions of that nature. This is an opportunity which I believe the House at large will seize upon to honour the Army through its great leaders who steered us through the crisis with such wonderful skill, energy, and ability. I hope if hon. Members do divide on this question they will be unable to carry with them either the united Labour party or the Liberal dissentient party, because by dividing on this particular point they are only dishonouring themselves and the party they represent.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not propose to follow hon. Members who have suggested that further names shall be added to this list, but I wish to protest against a very important departure from precedent by the inclusion of officials who, however eminent their services, can in no way be said to be a part of our fighting forces. May I first say that I have nothing but admiration for the valuable services which I believe have been performed during the War by Sir Maurice Hankey. They were services largely performed out of the view of the public, and the House is quite ready to accept the statement of the Prime Minister that his work was, absolutely essential to our success in the War. In what I say as to the inexpediency of including Sir Maurice Hankey's name in this list I am speaking on entirely impersonal grounds, and upon a matter of principle. There is no precedent whatever in former Grants of this kind for the inclusion of any but leaders of the fighting forces on sea and land. Strictly speaking, I believe there is no precedent for the inclusion of such Staff officers as Sir William Robertson and Sir Henry Wilson. Formerly these Votes have been limited entirely to those who have commanded in the field, and although Sir Henry Wilson commanded a corps in the field he would not have been included in the general standard of Army commands which has been adopted in this list. But at the same time, though the Government has perhaps departed from the narrow interpretation of precedent in this matter, I think they were

  439
  well advised to extend their list to the chief of the Imperial General Staff, because nowadays in war the distinction between the Staff and the higher command is rapidly breaking down. A successful commander must have far more of the attributes of Staff officers than was necessary in former wars. Personal presence on the battlefield is no longer possible, and a military commander nowadays does work which can only be successfully carried out if he appreciates the task of his Staff officers. Therefore, when I say that it is a mistake to depart from precedent I make this exception, that it was right to include these important Staff officers.
  Still, if we leave the path of precedent and no longer restrict ourselves to giving Grants to the leaders of the fighting forces, we find ourselves on very slippery ground indeed. Sir Maurice Hankey, before the War and during the earlier stages of the War. was Secretary of the Imperial Defence Committee, and since 1916 he has done very valuable work as Secretary to the War Cabinet. His work, however, approached far more closely in its nature to the work of the Civil servant than to that of the military leader, and why should you single out what in essence was one civil functionary from amongst the others; There are many names that will occur to Members of this House, names of men eminent in war work on the civil side, who have I think equal claims to consideration. What about Sir Eyre Crowe, who did so much to ensure that we got the full fruits of the War in the Peace negotiations? What about the officials responsible for our munitions supply and for our financial arrangements? if such a Grant is to be made to anyone outside the fighting forces, surely you cannot ignore these officials. You ought, indeed, to make a Grant to the Prime Minister himself, who stands out among all others for the tremendous strain and responsibility which he carried—a strain far greater and a weight of responsibility far heavier than that which rested on the shoulders of any of these naval or military commanders. Apart from the question of making an invidious choice between practically one civil function and another, it surely is inopportune to create a precedent for new expenditure. As a matter of principle while fully recognising the eminent services of Sir Maurice Hankey as Secretary of the War Cabinet, I do feel it is most
  440
  regrettable that his name, or indeed any name, should be included outside the ranks of the fighting Services.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson). At the same time, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I could wish that it had been a clear-cut Amendment to reject these Grants altogether, rather than to reduce them pro rata. My ground is really based on the fundamental fact that all those who took part in this War, particularly those in the Army and the Navy, did their best according to their ability, and any man who does his best according to his ability, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, should receive equal thanks from his country and should also be treated equally so far as any monetary reward is concerned. I profoundly dislike this selecting of certain names with a view to the giving of special gratuities. It is bad morally to lead people to believe that if you happen to be in a certain position, although you have only done your duty like the rest, you can obtain a special reward—a special financial reward. Honours and titles are certainly due to people who have held distinguished positions, but money grants bring down the honour to a very low basis, and do not add to the reputation of the generals or admirals who obtain them. We have heard this afternoon names suggested of men who rightly demand equal honour. It is held that we are measuring the honour and gratitude which we owe to General Birdwood or to General Hankey, or to General Robertson, by the amount we pay them, and that everybody who has commanded an Army who is left out of the list feels he has been slighted. At the same time we know quite well that there are many men behind the Army commanders who have been far more the brains of the movement that carried us to victory than the generals themselves. The people who are left out are relegated not only by the House but by history itself to the background. That seems to be most deplorable. We should base ourselves on the thanks of the nation alone, and those thanks ought to be the finest reward which can be given. These generals and admirals have in many cases big salaries. Sir Julian Byng is a rich man, so too is Admiral Beatty. Indeed. they are all well-to-do. They have no need for money, no need for these Grants.

  441
  Every one has a large income, and the country is by no means called upon to make these Grants, especially when it is well known that by so doing it is creating the gratuitous feeling that certain people have been slighted while other people have been given an unfair advantage. The only sane way of rewarding generals is to give them the thanks of the country.
  Then I object to these Grants on another ground. The country is already semi-bankrupt, yet here we are proposing to spend £700,000 when as a matter of fact we have no money to spend. If we had got a balance-sheet in which our income equalled our expenditure we might afford to give away this £700,000, but we are now proposing to give it away at a period when we are borrowing £300,000,000 a year. In the past when these Grants have been made to successful generals, the country has been in a solvent state. Now, however, it is in an insolvent condition, and to go on squandering the money, thereby bringing the nation nearer and nearer to bankruptcy is one of the most terrible mistakes this House can make. We have agreed to pay £18,000,000 for pensions to the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force. We have had the salaries of Secretaries of State raised. What is the natural result of all this extravagance on the working classes of the country? Naturally when they see money being squandered in this way they think they ought to have more. I know hon. Members call me a Bolshevik, but I can assure them from my knowledge of the country at the present moment that by this policy they are doing more to create Bolshevism here than I ever did. It is this perpetual extravagance on the part of the Government, unaccompanied by any attempt to make both ends meet or to secure retrenchment that is making the people in this country desperate. They are getting in the habit of thinking on these lines: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. "That is the basis of most of the extravagance that is going on. They sec the Government squandering money, and both the working classes and middle classes are getting that feeling. The surest way to create strikes and other troubles is to continue this policy of extravagance, a policy which, in my opinion, must be put a stop to. Although many Members here—not myself—might like in ordinary circumstances to give big gratuities to Army Commanders, at the same time, when you have not got the money, it is a
  442
  very bad time for going further into debt and promising people money you have not got.
  There is a third reason why I object to these Grants. It is because we always have on these occasions a perfect orgy of hypocrisy, nothing more or less. We have been told by speaker after speaker that all these generals and admirals are geniuses, and that they are the greatest leaders this country has ever had. We all know in our own souls that such is not the case. They are human beings, and have done their best, but it was not a very good best. We all remember the joy-bells being rung for Cambrai, and that that was a little premature. We all remember Passchendaele, with its 270,000 casualties, and the battle which went on a month after it ought to have stopped, and thereby blunted the finest weapon in the world—the British Army. I know that these things are not talked about in this House, but they are known to everybody who fought in these battles. What will the people who fought at Passchendaele say of these Grants being made to the generals who were in charge? Are they going to be grateful to them for it, or for all the gush that has been ladled out to the leaders? We all know that mistakes were committed. All this talk about these heaven-sent geniuses in the upper ranks of the British Army is not based on sound fact. It will be a bad thing for the British Army if young officers in future are to be taught that genius was shown by our Army in this War. If they are to take our strategy as displayed in this War as an example for all future time it will not be very good for the education of the Army. We won this War because the men fought it like men. We won it very often in spite of the generals and the brass hats. I, for one, must enter a protest against this sort of idea that it was divine leadership which carried the British Army to victory.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: Notwithstanding the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford (Captain Loseby), I submit to the Committee that it is possible to be unanimous in desiring to do honour to these generals and yet differ as to the means of bestowing that honour. Are we not lowering honours and titles, or taking from them, by reducing to a cash basis the honour which we seek to do to these generals and other officers'? I know that the Prime Minister referred to precedents, but some precedents are honoured more in the

  443
  breach than in the observance. He went back two or three centuries. If he had gone back further he would find that the origin of these Grants is really to be found in the days when the King called his nobles together and they raided a neighbouring territory and divided the spoils between them. I do not suggest for one moment that that is at the back or underlies the principle of these Grants— far from it; I know it is not so. But if you appeal to precedents, a precedent such as that is one which might well be departed from in these days. We have been told on many occasions that we are a new world. Cannot we, therefore, break with some of these old precedents; cannot we get back to the fundamentals of life, to the verities, and give honour for honour's sake? We were told in the Debate in this House last night that it ought to be considered a sufficient honour to be a Cabinet Minister without salary, merely for the honour of public service. I submit that something of the. same spirit should be observed in regard to the honours we are giving to the distinguished generals who fought in this War. Honours for honour's sake, such as titles. and decorations, are excellent, but you depreciate them if you bring them down to a cash basis.
  I hesitate to make these remarks, because one might be so easily misunderstood. As one who served as a non-commissioned officer for two years overseas under some of these commanders we are honouring to-day, I should regret vary much if anything I said should be taken as in any way suggesting that I was not with the rest of the Members of the Committee in seeking to do them honour for the magnificent service they have rendered. At the same time, why differentiate? Out there we all stood the same risks, the same difficulties, and the same privations. Our opportunities were unequal, and I do not suggest for one moment that those of us who served in the ranks did equal service, although we may have done what we could. At the same time, having stood equal risks, having been comrades together in all the hardships, why now differentiate? The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) pointed out that the man in the ranks gets his gratuity according to his length of service. Would it not have met the justice of the case if, in the same way as officers receive higher gratuities than
  444
  the men, these higher commands should be put proportionately on the same basis for gratuity for service, and that we should not make a special monetary Grant, such as we are asked to consider to-day? I suggest, with all respect, that we should break with the old traditions, and that we should be doing greater honour to these great men by not attempting to reduce their services to a cash basis. Member after Member who has spoken has taken pains to explain that the sum indicated would not in any way represent the debt due to them. I agree with that. Why introduce the cash basis at all? Seeing that you cannot do justice on a cash basis, why not eliminate it altogether? I disagree with the Leader of the Labour party, who suggests that we should reduce the amount. If you are to give an amount, let it be a just one. Let honours, titles, and distinctions which are awarded and the honour in the memory of a grateful public be the reward for the magnificent services these officers have done, but do not belittle that honour by bringing in a cash payment.
  Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I had hoped it would not have been necessary for me to take any part at all in this Debate. I regret very much the turn it has taken. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) mentioned the subject of war gratuities to the men. I do not see what that has to do with the subject we are discussing to-day. That particular subject was brought up on the Army Estimates last Tuesday, and, if I am not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman was either not in his place to discuss the matter or he did not raise it in Debate. It was raised by hon. Members on this side of the Committee and by the Army Committee, who would probably back him up if he raises it another time. It strikes me that some hon. Members think that an election is not very far off when they begin to mix these subjects up together. I am a new Member of the House, and that is my opinion. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Army commanders, of the Commander-in-Chief or of any of the other officers of the Army who have been mentioned. I should like, however, to point out that Sir Douglas Haig has hitherto refused to accept any honour until he saw that the men and the officers were being properly and adequately treated. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-

  445
  under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) mentioned the Chiefs of Staff and of Armies by name, and said that they were very largely responsible for the success of the operations of their Armies.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I said more than were the General Staffs.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: I do not agree at all. If the Chiefs of Staff of the two Armies were here to-day, they would say that the entire credit was due to their Army commander, and they would support him as much as possible. That is my opinion from close find intimate know ledge of them. I should like to tell the Committee a good many stories about the anxieties and responsibilities of these Army commanders, whom I know very well, but I am not going to waste the time of the Committee in doing that. There is one matter on which I feel it is necessary for me to say something. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned the battle of Passchendaele. I should like to tell the Committee not only my views but the solid facts. One hears a great deal of discussion of that battle. I have heard it during the last six months all over the country. I am going to tell the Committee the facts of the case, and what I think about it. First, I should like to explain what was the general situation at that time. At the beginning of 1917, just after the battle of the spring, the Russian Army ceased to exist altogether as a fighting force. Then the French Army, to a very large extent, ceased to exist as a fighting force, owing to the troubles they had within that Army. That may not be generally known to members of the Committee. With all respect to the French, I think it is very important that we should ascertain the facts and not hide them up. The French had a lot of trouble inside their Army, and were not really of very much value to us during the summer and autumn of that year. The third point is that the Italian Army was completely out of operation altogether, owing to the attack in the autumn. The fourth point is that America was not in the War at all, and could not give us any assistance. That is to say, in other words, the Allies were of little value to the British during the summer, autumn, and winter of 1917, and the British Army had to bear the whole brunt of the world war.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is that any reason for throwing it away?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: These are absolute facts, and there is no question about them. Another point which added very greatly to the anxieties and troubles of those in high command was that the Admiralty were extremely anxious about the communications across the Channel. They sent over to the High Command in France, through the ordinary channel, to say that unless the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge could be brought under our control our communications across the Channel would be very greatly endangered. That was a matter of very serious consideration. The fifth point I have to make is the weather. Normally speaking, the good weather lasts certainly up to the middle of September, and should be quite good enough to go on with operations. The weather broke, as we know, in July or early August, and the operations were carried out under a great disadvantage. Had the weather held from the beginning, I have not the least doubt that we should have brought the ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge within our long-range-gun fire. There is a. strategic principle, with which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not agree I have no doubt that he is a great strategist, but there are others—that is, that when all the enemy forces have been released from the Eastern Front, and are pouring over the Western Front, and when your communications—
  Major HAYWARD: On a point of Order. Would it be in order for us to discuss the operations on the various fronts on this Vote?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have thought it right to permit a number of hon. Gentlemen, particularly the one (Colonel Wedgwood) sitting behind the hon. and gallant Member for Seaham, to travel rather wide in this discussion. I thought it would be better not to interfere, but I do suggest to hon. Members generally that the discussion is tending to go too wide, and I think they might now come back to the question of the Vote before the Committee.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be in order to reply with reference to Passchendaele when this Amendment is disposed of?
  The CHAIRMAN:I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member and to others that it would be undesirable.
  Sir J. DAVIDSON: I would never have touched on this question at all—I dislike it intensely—if the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had not mentioned it. I was saying that when the enemy's forces had been released by the collapse of Russia from the Eastern Front, and were swarming across, both formed bodies of troops and reinforcements, and when our own communications were in danger, the only thing to do, considering that the British forces on the Western Front were working single-handed, was to attack. I am perfectly convinced that history, when it is written, will say that the right thing to do was to attack, and to stick to that attack as long as that menace existed and until the winter shut down the possibility of the Germans themselves attacking. I believe, seeing that France, Russia, Italy, and America were of very little use during that period, that the action of the British Forces did prevent the War being finished a year earlier, and finished the wrong way. The British came out on top during that period, because they stuck to it in their bulldog way, as perhaps they can do better than any other nation. When the history is written of that period, from June or July, of 1917, until the end of that year, I believe it will be found that it was the most critical period of the whole War,
  and that the greatest credit was due, not only to this country but to the Commander-in-Chief and his Army commanders, for sticking to it during that time, fully realising the appalling conditions under which tine troops were operating. I believe myself that history will prove that, although possibly the hon. and gallant Member on the other side may be able to prove something else in the meantime.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would make an appeal to the Committee whether the time has not come for arriving at a decision on the subject before the Committee. A discussion of such points as have been dealt with in the last two speeches would be endless, and I am perfectly certain that there is no one in this House, whatever may be his views as to mistakes or absence of mistakes, who does not realise the great part which has been played, not only by our soldiers but by the leaders of our soldiers, during the War. The real question is whether or not the amount suggested by the Government shall be granted. On that point I think the Committee has made up its mind, and I think it would be well that we should now come to a decision.
  Question put, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted for the said services."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 288.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Hartshorn, V.

  Sexton, James

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hirst, G. H.

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hogge, J. M.

  Sitch, C. H.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, Capt A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Briant, F.

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Smith, W. (Weilingborough)

  Bromfield, W.

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

  Spencer, George A.

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Cairns, John

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Cape, Tom

  Lunn, William

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)

  Davies, Alfred (Clltheroe)

  Neal, Arthur

  Tootill, Robert

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Newbould, A, E,

  Walton, Sir Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Wedswood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wignall, James

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavton)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Grandy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr.

  Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

  Rowlands, James

  T. Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.

  Hallas, E.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  NOES.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Agg-Gardner, sir James Tynte

  Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Ainsworth, Captain C.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)

  Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Barker, Major R.

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Matthews, David

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)

  Gardiner, J. (Perth)

  Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Gaddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Barnett, captain Richard W,

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Morden, Col. H. Grant

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Morris, Richard

  Barrand, A. R.

  Gllmour, Lieut-Colonel John.

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Glyn, Major R.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Gregory, Holman

  Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

  Benn, Capt. W. (Lelth)

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Murray, William (Dumtries)

  Bennett, T. J.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Betterton, H. B.

  Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Bowles, Col. H. F.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

  Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Parker, James

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Perring, William George

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

  Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  Hinds, John

  Pollack, Sir Ernest Murray

  Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pratt, John William

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

  Hood, Joseph

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothlan)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Campion, Colonel W. R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Carr, W. T.

  Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

  Rae, H. Norman

  Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

  Hudson, R. M.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Casey, T. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

  Hurd, P. A.

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Reid, D. D.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Remer, J. B.

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

  Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

  Jesson, C.

  Renwick, G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Johnstone, J.

  Rodger, A. K.

  Clough, R.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Cohon, Major J. B. B.

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

  Seager, Sir William

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Kidd, James

  Seddon, J. A.

  Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

  King, Commander Douglas

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Simm, Colonel M. T.

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Knights, Capt. H.

  Spret, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F, (Preston)

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Davies, T. (Clrencester)

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Stevens, Marshall

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Stewart, Gershom

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sugden, W. H.

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Edge, Captain William

  Lordon, John William

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  Losesy, Captain C. E.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)

  Falcon, Captain M.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

  Townley, Maximilan G.

  Farquharson, Major A. C,

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Waddington, R.

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Maddocks, Henry

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Foxcrott, Captain C.

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  450

  451

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Weston, Colonel John W.

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

  Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Lord E.

  Willey, Lt Col. F. V.

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Woolcock, W. J. U.

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Worsfeld, T. Cate

  Original Question again proposed.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have no intention of pursuing the discussion. I am quite content to leave it to the judgment of history.
  Mr. HODGE: I feel sure it must be obnoxious to the gallant generals and admirals that their names should have been brought into this discussion at all. I think the Government are absolutely and entirely to blame for that in seeking to apportion merit in terms of money. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) raised a question with respect to gratuities, and various other points have been raised, and I think it would be well that there should be some reply to them. For the purpose of recording my protest against the introduction of the Civil Service into this discussion I shall vote against the whole sum.
  Mr. HOGGE: On one of the few occasions when the Prime Minister is here I should like to ask him to say something about the war service gratuity of the ordinary soldier. It is not fair that the men who have served, and who are not getting these rewards should be left in their present position and that the Prime Minister should not give us some indication on behalf of the Government as to whether they are to receive at least as much in war service gratuities as the Government are paying to the men who joined the new Army.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I raised a question on the Vote of Thanks being given by the House to the distinguished generals and admirals who commanded in the field, and in particular to Sir David Beatty and Sir Douglas Haig. I pointed out that it was following the invariable precedent which was carried out in the case of commanders in the past that we should do so, and that a Committee of this House should wait on them and submit the Vote of Thanks to them, and that they should reply by letter or follow the precedents of previous cases, such as when the Duke of Wellington attended at this House and spoke in answer to a Vote of Thanks, the only other speaker being Mr. Speaker Abbott.
  Mr. J. JONES: I do not want to vote against the recognition of the great services rendered by the admirals and generals without giving some reasons for so doing, and I want to answer, if I can, some insinuations which have been levelled against Members of the party with which we are associated. If it be true that this is an electioneering, attempt on the part of those who oppose this Vote, our friend the enemy has the best opportunity of counting noses, because my mind goes back to 1914, when those who were able to influence those with whom we were associated were asked to appeal to our fellow-workers to join the Army and fight in defence of freedom and liberty, and we were told by those who asked us to assist not to offer any bribe but to point the way to duty, not to talk about what men would get if they went, but to appeal to them to fight in defence of the liberty and freedom of the people, which was being attacked by the most tyrannous militarism the world has ever seen. We have gone through the War and we have won. I am going to give every possible credit to the great generals and admirals who have done their duty so nobly, but in giving them credit I am not going to recognise that they have done any greater service than the common soldier and the common sailor. The common men who have fought can say to the admirals and generals, "As good as you are and as bad as we are, we are as good you are, bad as we are. "The hundreds of thousands of men who are now being demobilised can also ask, what have they got from a grateful nation. A suit of clothes, valued at £2 l7s. 6d.—shoddy; they have got a gratuity which will go in a few weeks at present prices; and they have got an out-of-work ticket And there are a large number of people putting questions as to lazy bounders who will not work. After all they have done, the common men who have fought are going to get no recognition beyond a Vote of Thanks from this House and the possibility of being out of work until trade gets better. The discussion reminds me very much of a story told about a great English admiral going into action. He was parading the

  453
  deck and he found one of the ship's boys praying on his knees. He said, "What are you doing there, my lad?" The boy said, "I am praying, sir." "Praying," he said, "don't you know we are going into action, and this is not a time for prayer?" The boy said, "My mother told me, when I joined the Navy, that whenever I was in any trouble I was to go on my knees and appeal to my Maker. I am doing so." The officer softened a bit, and said, "Tell me what you were praying for." "I was praying to the Lord that he would direct the enemy to send the shells in the same way as you do the prize money—the biggest number amongst the officers. "Evidently that is the principle that is being followed. "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away, even the little that he hath."
  They have come home after fighting for their country and find they have no country in reality, because on the road they are tramps and off the road they are trespassers. Whenever we ask for any consideration for them we are told about the generous treatment they are going to receive if they will only wait and toe good and obey those in authority over them. I am not going to give a silent vote. These great generals have had honours showered upon them and have received the freedom of all the great cities of the Kingdom, they have been thanked by both Houses of Parliament, they have behind them the salaries they have received and in front of them the possibility of pensions. I think the motto ought to be adopted by the country, "He who would be greatest amongst you, let him be the servant of all. "If we are going to hold out to these generals and admirals the idea that because some of them are not so prominent as others, they are going to receive less recognition, although their services might be equally great—if we are going to divide them up into sections and sub-sections and say which of them shall receive the most, we are reducing the very principle we are proposing to do honour to the lowest cash nexus basis, and the trail of the weights and scales is over it all. These men would be more greatly honoured by the thanks of Parliament and the gratitude of the nation than they are by the sums which are now being given them against the protests of thousands of men who think they have not been fairly treated by the State they have served equally well. The
  454
  poorest soldiers and sailors who have done their bit in the War are as much deserving of being guaranteed against future poverty as these generals are entitled to receive money which they do not really need. Honour we can give them and I hope they will never require anything more than honour. The other men do require more. They require generous treatment, which they have not yet received. What about the widows? What about the mothers and the fathers who are helpless and disabled, "who are not able to work and whose sons have laid their lives down? What are they receiving from the country? If you have money to throw away let us give to those who are most in need of it. If it is a question of money grants, give it to the fathers and mothers of the men who will never come back and give it to those women who are loft behind who are asking themselves how they and their children can live. I want to record my vote against the whole measure, because I do not believe these great men will be honoured by the money you are giving them, but will be far more honoured by the grateful appreciation of a nation which is thankful for their services.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I rise simply to reply to one or two questions which I was under the impression had been answered. The Secretary of State for War came here to reply to questions with regard to gratuities. I do not know what happened in the course of the discussion. The answer with regard to the gratuity is one which I should have thought my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) would know. The gratuity which the soldiers would receive under the old conditions came to about£1 a year. That was the amount under the Warrant. The Cabinet came to the conclusion that that was grossly inadequate as a gratuity, and they decided to agree to a gratuity which amounted — I am speaking roughly —to something like five times the amount which, under the old Warrant, would have been given to them. [AN HON. MEMBER "Twenty-three times!"] If it is twenty-three times, then the case is all the stronger. I do not think it is twenty-three times, but it is at least five times, and in some cases it is a good deal more than that amount. That was 'a substitute for what we regarded as the meagre and niggardly sum that was given to the soldier under the

  455
  old allowance. I do not think it is fair that it should go forward on the authority of hon. Members that soldiers are being deprived of something to which they have a. right. On the contrary, this House has voted something which was enormously greater than anything that' had been accorded to them under the terms of their service, and I think it is fair that the soldiers should know that. The amount in the aggregate is very considerable. It runs to several millions.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Very many millions.
  The PRIME MINISTER: It runs to very many millions. That sum has been voted by this House with the general assent of Members. I want that known, so that it shall not be said, as a result of this Debate, that we are voting £580,000 to the generals and giving no gratuity to the soldiers. It does not represent the facts in the least.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite fair to us. Nobody said that we were not giving war service gratuities. We know that they are getting war service gratuities. The House knows that j they are getting war service gratuities in place of service gratuities. The point I made, and the point which has not been replied to, was that, on the average, these men are not getting in proportion to the officers, nor are the officers getting in proportion to the men to whom you are voting Grants this afternoon. We ask you to pay the men whom they led on the same terms as the average officer in the Army,
  The PRIME MINISTER: The impression left on the minds of those who heard the Debate was that the soldiers were being deprived of something to which they were entitled. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that denial, and I hope that the denial will appear in all the Press of the Kingdom, because that was the impression left by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Jones) who has just sat down. From the speech of the hon. Member one would have thought that we are voting £580,000 to the generals and the admirals, and that we are not voting any gratuities to the soldiers, and that we are depriving the widows of allowances.
  Mr. J. JONES: What I said was that we are not making adequate allowance to the fathers, mothers, and widows of the soldiers.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We had a discussion the other day on pensions and allowances, and in that way we are voting £ 100,000,000 a year. The hon. Member has now made a very different statement. If he had said, "You are voting £580,000 to these great men, and you are only voting £ 100,000,000 per annum to be distributed among the widows and orphans who are suffering, "it was open for him to say so. It is only fair to state the facts, and let him base his denunciation on the facts. I congratulate him on one thing, and that is that speeches of this kind which are made outside by others are made by him here where they can be contradicted. That is valuable. If he addressed a crowd, and I suppose he does address crowds, and made a statement of that kind in the vague indefinite language in which he has made the statement to-day, I am sure one could draw no-other inference except that the money is all voted to generals and to big people. What about the £100,000,000 voted for pensions? I ask him the next time he makes a statement outside to say that while we are voting £580,000 to the generals and the big people, we are voting £100,000,000 per annum for pensions, and he will find a very different reception. We have considered the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). He himself sees that we have confined the Vote of Thanks to a few names. We thought it the best way to have one Motion of thanks for all the officers and men, and I am certain that all those men will be proud to be included in that vote of thanks. We have put the special vote of thanks in this substantial form. I agree that it is a departure from precedent, and I think the Motion which we make to-day is much more elaborate and much more searching and comprehensive than any Motion that has ever been made before. On the whole I think we were right in the form in which we decided to accord the vote of thanks to the officers and men of the Navy.
  Colonel BURN: I do not want to delay the House in coming to a conclusion on this matter, but I want to appeal on behalf of the men of the Royal Engineers who

  457
  joined the Army from the Post Office. These men have not had war gratuities, and I claim that they have every right to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I have allowed too much liberty. We cannot have a rehash of the pensions debate
  Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £ 585,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to those officers who commanded and directed His forces by sea, on land, and in the air, in recognition of their eminent services during the late War.
  The Committee divided:' Ayes, 272; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 86.]

  AYES.

  [7.39 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

  Johnstone, J.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ainsworth, Capt. C.

  Craig, Lt.-Com. N. (Isle of Thanet)

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M. S.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Kidd, James

  Barker, Major R.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  King, Commander Douglas

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals)

  Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Barnett, Captain Richard W.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Knights, Captain H.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

  Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.

  Lorden, John William

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Foxcroft, Captain C.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Bennett, T. J.

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

  Betterton, H. B.

  Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)

  M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Gaddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Bird, Alfred

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Maddocks, Henry

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Gllmour, Lieut-Colonel John.

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Glyn, Major R.

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

  Manville, Edward

  Bowles, Col. H. F.

  Gray, Major E.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

  Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

  Brackenbury, Col. H. L.

  Gregory, Holman

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Gretton, Col. John

  Morris, Richard

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

  Hallwood, A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James

  Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

  Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

  Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

  Campion, Colonel W. R.

  Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverten)

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Carr, W. T.

  Hennessy, Major G.

  Neal, Arthur

  Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Casey, T. W.

  Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

  Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

  Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)

  O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm.,W.)

  Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Hood, Joseph

  Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

  Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, James

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Clough, R.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Horne, Edgar (Guildlord)

  Perring, William George

  Cockerill, Brlg.-Gen. G. K.

  Hudson, R. M.

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Cohen, Major J. B. B.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Polleck, Sir Ernest Murray

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Pratt, John William

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon, Ernest G.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

  Jesson, C.

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Purchase, H. G.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Rae, H. Norman

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wigan, Brigadier-General John Tyson

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Reid, D. D.

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.

  Remer, J. B.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

  Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Renwick, G.

  Sugden, W. H.

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H,

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J, (Darwen)

  Townley, Maximilan G.

  Woolcock, W. J. U.

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Waddington, R.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Younger, Sir George

  Seager, Sir William

  Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Capt.

  Seddon, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  F. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

  Weston, Colonel John W.

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Sitch, C. H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hirst, G. H.

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Briant, F.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Spencer, George A.

  Bromfield, W.

  Hogge, J. M.

  Swan, J. E. C.

  Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

  Jones, J. (Silvertown)

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Cairns, John

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Cape, Tom

  Lunn, William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)

  Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tootill, Robert

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

  Waterson, A. E.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Newbould, A. E.

  Wignall, James

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Robertson, J.

  Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, c.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Rose, Frank H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.

  Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

  Sexton, James

  Wedgwood and Lt.-Com. Kenworthy.

  Hallas, E.

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolved
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, the sum of £585,000be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[The, Prime. Minister.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  460
  The title of this Bill may, perhaps, recall to Members the old and somewhat belated controversies of the past, but I hope that the Bill will remove once for ail those old struggles and differences, and enable the various Christian denominations in Wales to work together in the smoothest and most friendly manner. This Bill has been rendered necessary purely by the War and by the changed circumstances which the War has brought about. It makes absolutely no change in any of the principles or any of the fundamentals contained in the Act of 1914. We have, to recognise that by the passing of that Act Disestablishment and Disendowment have become accomplished facts. But, of course, changed circumstances require changes of detail, and, therefore, it became necessary to inquire into the whole position, in order to see what the existing circumstances are and whether there was anything necessary in equity and justice in order to enable the principles of the Act of 1914 to be carried put. Apparently, judging as far as one is able to judge from public utterings and writings,

  461
  the impression was that the Church had been a great sufferer through the War. But on examination of the whole position, and of the Act of 1914, and on consideration of the more doubtful expressions contained in it, I think that I shall be able to satisfy the House that it was not the Church that suffered, and that its position, in my judgment, and, I think, in the judgment of most people who examined the figures, is considerably better. It is really the Welsh county councils and Welsh Church Commissioners to whose assistance the State will have to go. I think that I shall be able to show the House that unless the State gives that assistance to the Welsh Church Commissioners and thereby to the Welsh county councils, it would be quite impossible for the Act of 1914 to be carried out at all.
  There are three great differences which affect the financial position with regard to the Church proper. In the first place, there is the value of the tithe. When the Act of 1914 was passed, tithe then stood at a figure of about £77. It has since risen on the septennial average to £123 this year, and those whom I have consulted who are able to form an opinion tell me that next year it will certainly not be less than £132 and will probably be £136. The House may recollect that by the Tithe Act of last year provision was made that tithe can only be collected at £109 for the next seven years. So you have this position that on the septennial average tithe next year will be £136, and the tithe-owner will be prevented from collecting more than £109, and according to the original Act—that is to say, according to the time at which commutation has taken place in 1915, it would only be about £77. In addition to that the Act of 1914 provides that the price paid for the commuted tithe rent-charge, the capitalised value, is to be calculated on the 3½per cent. tables. That was quite right in 1914, but to-day, of course, it involves a very heavy burden upon those who have to pay the money and who cannot possibly borrow at less than 5 per cent. In addition to that, when you deal with the payments necessary for the redemption of the loans, necessary to pay the price for commutation and reckoning the length of period over which that redemption must run you have now to take into consideration the fact that the Income Tax on the surplus value of the Welsh Commissioners is 6s. in the £ instead of 1s. 2d.
  462
  8.0 P.M.
  Those were three very material changes which operate in the circumstances as they now exist. There were two matters which were doubtful as matters of law in the Act of 1914. The first doubt was as to what are known as lapsed interests. It appeared to be taken for granted by everybody that the date of Disestablishment having to be postponed owing to the War from some period in 1915 until next year, some five years, a number of the then existing interests would have ceased to be existing interests at the date of commutation. I looked into the matter when I was first asked to take charge of this Bill, and I formed the conclusion that it was very doubtful indeed whether any interests had lapsed at all, having regard to the wording of the Act of 1914, and I am now fortified by the opinion of the Law Officers that in fact there are no lapsed interests at all. and that the Church are entitled to-day, if the Act of 1914 stands unchanged, to claim every interest and the value of every interest that they could claim at the date of Disestablishment in 1915. Therefore the position was that although it was arguable, although the point might be raised as against the Church that there were lapsed interests, still, in the view of those able to judge, there were no lapsed interests at all. We have thought it right to approach this whole question from the point of view that there are no lapsed interests, and that the Church is entitled to the whole of the interests that existed at the time of the passing of the Act. The other point of view was whether the Tithe Act of 1918 governed the provisions of the Welsh Church Act of 1914. If it did, then the Church would only been titled to have the tithe rent-charge commuted at the annual price of £109 instead of the annual price of £106. On that point, also, I have had my opinion fortified by the Law Officers of the Crown, who hold the view, as I myself did, that, in fact, on the interpretation of the Act of 1914, the Church is entitled to have the tithe commuted at the annual value at the date of commutation, which will be next year, and that in all probability will be £136. That being the position, we Have approached the matter from the point of view that the Church is entitled, as we believe in law it is entitled, if the Act stands unchanged, and without bringing in any amending Bill, to tithe commuted at the value of £136. Those two questions out of the way, the point arose, What was the position?

  463
  We had very careful actuarial calculations made, and the position appears to be this: We had to take into consideration, of course, the period of time over which the debt incurred by the Welsh Commissioners and the county councils could be redeemed, and we concluded that if it were possible so to arrange it, they ought not to be asked to wait longer than thirty years for the full benefit of the tithe rent-charge which they had purchased. Therefore, we have gone on the basis of a period of thirty years.
  What is the result? In order to pay for the commuted tithe rent-charge and other commuted property of the Church, a sum would be required of £3,400,000, and the point arose what were the Welsh Commissioners to do to raise that sum? The whole of the property which they possess has been carefully valued by the actuary. He has had to go upon the assumption that as soon, as the tithe rent - charge is commuted it ceased to be a tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice. The point is this, that so long as the tithe rent-charge is a rent charge attached to a benefice it pays only half the rates and the Treasury pay the other half. The moment it ceases to be so attached, the tithe itself is liable for the whole of the rates and the Treasury no longer pay any proportion. Assuming that still to be the case, the whole of the property which will be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners, having regard to the amount of Income Tax and other charges, would be security at the outside for only £2,150,000. They have security for the borrowing of £2,150,000, and they are liable to have to raise £3,400,000. The way we propose to deal with that is this: We propose by the Bill to make commutation compulsory instead of optional, and we then propose that so long as the tithe rent-charge remains vested in the Welsh Commissioners, so long as it is not actually handed over to the county councils, it is to be deemed to be tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice, and by that means they will be relieved of half their rates. That will enable them to borrow another £260,000, and that will reduce the deficiency from £1,250,000 to £1,000,000. They are, therefore, now faced with this position, that they can borrow £2,400,000 and they have to pay £3,400,000.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recognise that
  464
  these financial questions are very difficult to follow. Does that mean that the Treasury will pay another £250,000 to the county councils in relief of rates?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
  Lord R. CECIL: So that the sum paid to the county councils is £1,250,000, not £1,000,000?
  Mr. SHORTT: That will be so. In some way they have to provide £1,000,000. There is no specific means provided in the Act of 1914 whereby they can raise money in any way for any deficiency. Of course, they could ask the county councils to levy a rate for the purpose, but that has only to be mentioned to be dismissed as hopelessly impossible. Therefore, the only position is that they should have something corresponding to the Treasury guarantee which the Act of 1914 gives them, and that the Treasury, in the hope of securing peace in Wales and friendship among all parties—[Laughter]. I really do not know why there should be jeering about it. It is with that hope that the Bill is produced, and I hope it may succeed.
  Sir EDGAR JONES: It does not come from Wales.
  Mr. SHORTT: It is in the hope of get-ting that friendship and co-operation and co-ordination, that the British Treasury proposes to come to the assistance of the Welsh Commissioners by the grant of the necessary £1,000,000. That is the whole position, and that is the main object of the Bill.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the £1,000,000 is going—to the Welsh local authorities or to the Welsh Church?
  Mr. SHORTT: It is going to pay a debt which the Welsh. Commissioners are bound to pay to the Welsh Church under an Act already in existence. The Welsh Church is entitled by law to say one of two things, "Either you must let the Act of 1914 drop altogether, in which case there is an end of Disestablishment and Disendowment, or else you must carry that Act out and you have to pay us £3,400,000." The £1,000,000 will go towards the payment of that £3,400,000. Whether it is a payment to the church or to the county councils I will leave my hon. Friend to judge.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Is the basis of commutation for these life interests at

  465
  £136 or at the £109, at which sum tithe rent was sterilised throughout England and Wales, I think, last year?
  Mr. SHORTT: As I tried to explain, after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown we came to the conclusion that the Church is entitled to it at £136, that the sterilising Act of 1918 does not govern the Act of 1914. We have made arrangements that the county councils will be enabled to redeem in thirty years the debt which they have incurred. The income they will receive from the tithe-rent charges and the surplus of that income, accumulating as it will, will enable them to pay off the debt in a period of thirty' years. So far as the county councils are concerned the position is that whereas under the provisions that could have been made, had there been no war—no enormous rise in the price of wheat and bread and so on—they could have cleared off the debt by 1941; as it is to-day under the changed circumstance, they will have to wait till 1950 before they clear off their debt, but they will then come into £200,000 a year instead of £150,000 a year. That, to put it briefly, is the financial position. Broadly speaking, either the Act of 1914 must be dropped or repealed, or else this £1,000,000 must be found. We have come to the conclusion, and I think the whole country will support us in it, that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the £1,000,000 ought to be found, and no attempt made to reopen once more the old sore struggle for Disestablishment.
  There are certain other details, but they are all details necessary for carrying out of the 1914 Act. The date of Disestablishment, for example, is set over till next year. That date has been chosen after full consultation with the Welsh Church Commissioners and the representative body who have to carry out all the details. I am quite sure that owing to the work that has to be done by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and with the depletion of staff throughout the War, they could not possibly be ready at any date this year. You will have to take next year's price as the commutation price. It comets into force on 1st January. We thought we would then, choose the most convenient date, and the 31st March is the date most convenient for adjustment, book-keeping and so on. There is a provision to continue the life of the Welsh Commissioners. The Welsh Commissioners automatically cease to
  466
  exist on the 31st December of this year, and we make provision by which they are to carry on the work. I think, with regard to all the other matters, that they are really domestic matters. For instance, in the case of marriage, owing to the wording of the Act of 1914, in a large parish with four or five curates the vicar would be the only one able to solemnise marriage, and provision is made by the Bill so that the curates may do so. There is a provision also to free the Church to some extent from the control of the Charity Commissioners, and other matters which, as I have said, are domestic matters with which I need not trouble the House.
  That is the Bill. I hope and believe it will be accepted by the House, and I hope it will be accepted as a final settlement of an old and somewhat bitter controversy. We certainly offer it in that spirit. We believe, and 1 certainly for one believe, that there has grown up of late years all over the country, and more especially in Wales, a stronger feeling of spiritual brotherhood among all denominations than has existed before. We want, if possible, to foster that spirit and to encourage it and to remove from its path every possible obstacle that may exist. I believe that until the provisions of the Act of 1914 are carried out there still remains an obstacle in the way, and the more generous the spirit in which it is carried out the more friendly will be the feeling that will continue to exist when Disestablishment is an accompished fact. I ask the House, therefore, to view this, because, after all, the generosity that we have shown the Church is not so very great. The generosity we have shown has been to take as a legal right, an established legal right, what we are advised could be established as a legal right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," and laughter.] That is really all. I do not know what is meant by those jeers. The Church apparently were unaware of that because they put out a number of S.O.S. signals for months past which were quite unnecessary. An unfortunate result of that is to make people think that the Church were asking for some change in the Act of 1914, for some fundamental change, and if they had asked for any fundamental change they would not have got it. That generous treatment is given in the hope that it will produce real true brotherly feeling, and in spite of the somewhat jeering laughter with which some of my sentences have been greeted, 1 believe that the feeling of the whole of the House will be that this

  467
  ought to be done, and I am satisfied the feeling of the country will be that this ought to be done, and therefore I ask the House to accept it.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The House is very much indebted to the Home Secretary for his very lucid explanation of a very intricate matter. I have heard this Bill explained by more persons than one during the last twenty-four hours, and the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is far the clearest and most intelligible to which I have listened. But it differs in one important respect from the other explanations in mentioning the very important opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, from which it is clear, and indeed as the Home Secretary states it is clear, that the Church gets nothing whatever out of this Bill except the rights already legally assured to it in the Act of 1914. That is a very important statement, and I cannot help thinking that it would have been a good plan if that had been made as clear by an equally lucid explanation, for example to the Welsh bishops when they had been in conference with the members of the Government on this subject. They were quite unaware of the fact which the Home Secretary has so lucidly explained to the House. My right hon. Friend was surprised because a good many of his observations were received with laughter and ironical cheering. I can assure my right hon. Friend that that ironical cheering was not directed against himself, and we saw nothing worthy of derision in his language or attitude, but we had a certain amusement, tinged perhaps by bitterness, in the reflection that he is a colleague of the Leader of the House, and when we recollect what my right hon. Friend has said on the subject of Welsh Disendowment and which I suspect my right hon. Friend would now much rather forget. When the Home Secretary speaks eloquently and hopes, and we all echo his hope, that there may be a great spirit of fraternity among Christian bodies, I agree that that is a desirable thing, but at the same time I do not see why financing Welsh county councils will particularly produce fraternity among Christian bodies. It is appropriate that Welsh county councils should be able to pay their statutory debts, but there seems a certain inappropriateness in making that the theme for a discourse on Christian fraternity. If any good had been
  468
  done or any benefit had been rendered either to the religious interests of the Church or to the religious interests of Nonconformity by this Bill, then I could have understood this thought of fraternity and Christian obligation. But is the common honesty of a county council defraying its legal debt without any regard to the interests of religion or any bearing beyond the general bearing that common honesty has on religion really an occasion which gives the right hon. Gentleman a special title to appeal to Christians to forget their disagreements and controversies of the past? In one sense I hope that the controversies, both in England, and Wales, between the Church and Nonconformity may be buried, and I do earnestly desire that a spirit of Christian unity may remain among them, but I do not think this Bill will help it. I am quite sure that the original Act which this Bill seeks to amend did a very ill-service to Christian unity, and sowed the seeds of a bitterness which nothing but Christian sentiments and wiser and better Churchmen and Nonconformists would prevent coming to fruition.
  I have no quarrel beyond the old quarrel with the Liberal members of the Government in respect of this Bill. Their position, I think, is open to the criticisms that have often been made on the question of Disendowment, but it is open to no criticism in respect of this Bill. They are perfectly consistent. I will say a. word later as to some arguments which I think should have more weight with them than they appear to have. I think my right hon. Friends, the Unionist leaders, are in a totally different position from the Liberal members of the Government. They are deeply pledged to the position that Disendowment is confiscation, and that it is an injury to religion. That my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House fully recognises. I know, because I have had the advantage of approaching him privately, and was obliged for the courtesy which he has always showed. He gave a promise on 21st April, 1914, that:
  "If a Unionist Government is returned to power I am sure that one of the first things that Government will do will be to restore to the Church of Wales the funds of which you have deprived her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col. 878, Vol. 61.]
  My right hon. Friend takes this view. Though this Government absolutely depends on Unionist support—for it would immediately cease to exist if he and his colleagues resigned—nevertheless that

  469
  pledge has wholly ceased to be binding, and I am rather inclined to think that my right hon. Friend's explanation would qualify him for a place in Pascal's Provincial Letters amongst those who found excuses. But I will return to the question of how far my right hon. Friend is bound by that pledge before I sit down. Let me first advert to the general aspect, because you cannot judge of the importance of the pledge till you judge in what general light my right hon. Friend treated this Bill. My right hon. Friend made a number of speeches on this Bill. I cannot pretend to have had the pleasure of reading them all, but I have read one of them, or a part of one, which, like all my right hon. Friend's, was a very good speech. It is the same speech in which he gave the promise I have just quoted. He concluded with that promise, but he said a great deal before he came to that, and these are some of the things he said. He said:
  "There is no doubt, if what is being done to this Chruch were being done to any other body, it would be admitted to be wrong, and the fact that it is being done from party motives and by the full use of the party machine makes it not less but more, undisguisedly robbery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col 872. Vol. 61.]
  The Home Secretary has told us that this Bill is necessary to carry out the original Act, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House sees no impropriety in remaining a member of the Government which is going to pass a Bill necessary to carry out a policy of undisguised robbery. I cannot think that that is a decision which will raise his own personal credit or the reputation of politicians generally in respect to grave matters. In the same speech he also said:
  "I should like to go a step further. I hold that Parliament has absolutely no right to take these Endowments. But even if it had, and if there were some justification, I can imagine nothing more unwise than that these Endowments should be taken away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1914, col. 872, Vol. 61.]
  He ended up that part of his argument in this way:
  "Why are they taking them from the Church? No one will deny that to deprive the Church in Wales of these funds is to weaken that Church. It will, therefore, injure religion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st April, 1914, col. 873. Vol. 61.]
  My right hon. Friend is going to be a party to carrying out a policy which, by his own account, is, first, undisguised robbery, and, secondly, an injury to religion, and he is going to do that rather than to give up his place in the Govern-
  470
  ment that is a party to such a transaction. His Liberal colleagues are acting in perfect good faith. They believe their policy is justified, but he is acting knowing what he is doing. He is carrying out robbery, knowing it to be robbery. He is injuring religion knowing that he does injure religion, having said so, and I cannot think that that is a justifiable attitude for any public man to take up. Nor is this the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman alone; it is that of the whole of the Unionist Members of the Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Long) spoke in the same Debate, but on an earlier day, the 20th April. It appears that Sir John Simon, who had just spoken, had pretended to think that the accusation of robbery was not one that could be seriously maintained, and the First Lord of the Admiralty replied:
  "A moment ago, at the conclusion of his speech, he (Sir John Simon) did not forget to suggest that we adopted a form of opposition outside this House in regard to this Hill very different from the opposition which we offer inside, and he suggested that our statement that this Bill proposes to rob the four Welsh dioceses of the English Church in Wales is a statement which we keep for what he is pleased to term our Church defence platforms, and do not make on the floor of this House. It has been made on the floor of the House time after time, and it has been the burden of our song, and it has been the centre and foundation of speeches from this side of the House during all these Debates."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1914, col. 642, Vol. 61.]
  Yet my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty do not feel the smallest scruple or uneasiness at proceeding to pass a Bill which is necessary to carry out the policy which they repeatedly and over and over again—they and all their party—qualified as undisguised robeery and as an injury to religion. In the light of those quotations, to come back to the pledge that when a Unionist Government was in power Dis-endowment should be repealed, my right hon. Friend thinks that he is emancipated From that pledge, because, before the General Election, he said, "If there is to be a Coalition you cannot expect—it is impossible—that we can go to the country with precisely the same policy which we should adopt if we were going as a Unionist party alone." That is a very reasonable statement, but would anyone believe that that reasonable statement was intended to cover the adoption and acceptance of a policy of undisguised robbery? Is that the sort of moral give and take

  471
  that is to pass between politicians for political objects? Are these the sort of moral sacrifices that are to be made for the purpose of political co-operation? Action of that kind injures those who do it, and it injures the public life in which it is done. In my view, a sharp distinction ought to be drawn between what can be sacrificed for the purpose of political cooperation and what can not. Moral issues ought not to be lightly raised. In the heat of controversy perhaps they are often too easily raised, but if they are raised, those who raise them should recognise that they are under an obligation to act with that degree of fidelity to the moral propositions laid down which is required from all honest men by all honest men in respect to fidelity to moral propositions. That is quite a different sort of fidelity from that which is required about party allegiance or mere matters of policy. But my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has, if I may say so, inverted this salutary rule. He has exacted something from his Liberal colleagues. He has exacted, for example, a substantial measure of Colonial Preference. I greatly misunderstand the attitude of a large part of the Coalition Liberals in this House if I am wrong in saying that they would have far more willingly restored the Endowments to the Welsh Church—an act in their language of generosity, but in ours of justice—than they would have adopted a policy of Colonial Preference, but that did not weigh with my right hon. Friend. He cared, I suppose, a great deal more about Colonial Preference than he cared about hindering an undisguised robbery which is an injury to religion. To him, that was a much greater matter. He therefore insisted upon having his own way, and he had it. I do not complain at all. The policy is one which I thought reasonable and one which ought to be adopted, but I think, if there were to be compromises and sacrifices, the compromises and sacrifices should have been made where they could be made on a mere matter of policy and not on a plain moral issue formally and elaborately declared by the leaders of the Unionist party.
  There is only one thing I would like to say to my right hon. Friends who are Liberals, and who are in a different position, and no animadversion on their personal conduct would be at all reasonable, but I would put it to them whether, on
  472
  their own principles, this Bill might not have been more generous, as they would call it, than it is. I am told—these figures are not always understood, but I am told —that what practically the net result of the Bill will be is that a sum of £960,000 will be taken from the Church in the end, allowing for all these payments that are provided for in this Bill, and devoted to secular purposes. Does that seem a very desirable thing to do? I know my right hon. Friends think that by some ancient historical title the £960,000 belongs to the State. I do not agree with them, but I am not going to argue that matter now, but I would ask whether there is not something rather mean and rather impious in at this moment, just when we have come forth delivered from a great war, taking £960,000 from preaching the Gospel and giving it to the purposes of the Welsh county councils?
  The Prime Minister is pre-eminently associated with emphasising the duty of national thanksgiving. We have in every corporate way made acts of national thanksgiving. Just now we have voted gifts of money, as the natural companion of Votes of Thanks. When dealing in religious matters, it seems that our Votes of Thanks are not accompanied by grants of money, but by taking money away from those purposes and giving it to other things. I confess I think that is very unseemly. A sum which is very important to a little body doing a religious work is very small from the point of view of the State. Lord Inver forth, in moments of eccentricity, has spent more than that in one day—£960,000 is less than a quarter of what we have been told is the daily expenditure of the country since the Armistice, or the sum we spend between breakfast and lunch. I think it is a pity that we should inaugurate the period of peace by cramping the preaching of the Gospel. I cannot express, therefore, any gratitude for what this Bill may do. This Bill will mark one stage further down in the reputation of public men. I am sure, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in future has to deal with other matters—let us say labour troubles—he will find a certain difficulty arising, partly on account of the manner in which he has treated his obligations to the Welsh Church. He may have to say to owners of property and capitalists that they can count on him to protect them from robbery, but can any language be more vehement than that which I have quoted in respect of the

  473
  Welsh Church, and would it not occur to most of those who are asked to trust to such promises, that if it should happen that a political campaign might take place, which made it rather convenient to forget all about those pledges, those pledges would be of no avail?
  The strange doctrine has been contributed to casuistry that if you give a rather ambiguous and meaningless statement at a General Election you are emancipated from all the promises you made before. That would apply just as much to anyone else who is the recipient of Government promises. Labour or capital might be put off with the statement, "I said something which, properly understood, meant I was not going to do what I promised to do, and therefore I am free." 1 believe it to be profoundly mischievous that a great political party and great political leaders should support by that sort of language and that sort of argument a particular position in respect to a great public question, and then, when they are in office, they should be concerned about all sorts of matters—concerned with raising their own salaries, as they were doing last night—but should not be concerned in saving the Church from the robbery they had previously denounced. I believe it lowers public life, and I am sure everywhere where the Church is honoured, everywhere where these things arc taken seriously and felt to be great questions and great issues, it will always be remembered against my right hon. Friend and his Unionist colleagues that they have basely betrayed the Church under whose banner they were not ashamed to fight.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I intervene with some temerity in this Debate, because what I conceive to be a. promising rift in the Coalition may be healed by my intervention. I must say the Noble Lord's description of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as a "Jesuit Father" somewhat alarmed me. All I have to say about it is this, that during the time I have occupied this seat since January last his conduct has been distinguished by frankness, by candour, and by scrupulous attention to anything approaching a promise he may have made. However, I do not rise with any other intention but to put as well as I can, from this maze of figures, which I confess I have not been able to follow, what I conceive to be the public position, as apart from that of the Church in Wales
  474
  or the public bodies concerned in the Disendowment. The Noble Lord is under the impression that, in regard to Disendowment, the Church in Wales has still a great grievance. I am quite unable to follow that contention. So far as I have been able to follow the figures at all, it seems to me the net effect in 1950 will be that there will be no Disendowment at all of the Church in Wales.
  Lord H. CECIL: Why?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I am trying to explain. I do not suppose that view of mine will please many of my hon. Friends in Wales. I base it on figures as given by the Home Secretary, and given in the White Paper, as I understand from the very summary perusal I have been able to give to it. What is the position with regard to the tithe rent-charge, which, after all, is the main source of the revenue. When the Church Act was passed in 1914 it was contemplated that somewhere in 1915 the process of Disendowment would begin, and at that time the tithe rent-charge stood at about seventy-seven. The War came, and the price of tithe, as we know, soared up so much that last year, in order to stop what was getting a real scandal, the Act was passed which stabilised the tithe at 109. What we call the market price of the tithe has run up to about 136 to 132. During the whole time from 1914 to 1919 the Church in Wales has been in receipt of the whole of the proceeds of these tithes at 136 until stabilised at 109— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—or whatever it ran up to. It is constantly rising. It was not 136 when it started, but it went up to that. At any rate, on the average there has been a gain of about £186,000. The rise was very rapid.
  An HON. MEMBER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say they paid more than 109 at any one time? They never did.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand the tithe market rate this year was 136. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not!"] It is about 132. or 136 now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Next year!"] I will take it at 109 as against 77. They received that sum for five years. As I understand it— and indeed I think the Home Secretary said so—they are going to commute the interest at 136. But the county councils will not touch this money until 1950. When the matter is gone into on an actuarial basis I think

  475
  it will be found that, at any rate, by 1950, there has been a very small fraction indeed of Disendowment.
  But here is my point—my public point. There has been an attempt, a successful attempt it seems, between those responsible for the Government, the Prime Minister and his colleagues from Wales, to effect a settlement. Of course it has been settled outside this House. We are entitled to hear the whole thing. The House of Commons is not bound by anything the Prime Minister has done. Of course, we know what the result will be, but at any rate the duty of the House of Commons is to insist, in all these financial matters, that whatever arrangements are made outside, full disclosure shall be made here before any decision is ratified. Why should the public purse be depleted to the extent of a million in order to settle a difficulty between public bodies in Wales and the Church in Wales in regard to the Disendowment of the Church there? Suppose at some date—it may not be a very distant date—the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church comes up. What sort of precedent are we setting up now? This is a very serious matter as between the Church of England and its Endowment, and here we are deliberately setting up a precedent of the use of the National Treasury, to which all the component parts of the United Kingdom contribute, in order to settle the matter of the Church in Wales. That is the House of Commons point which I am taking. What may happen in the future, if this deal—or whatever else you like to call it—is passed through the House of Commons without a protest being made? It shall not be without, at all events, a protest from this side of the House. I am not very much interested as to Disendowment. Disestablishment, I feel, must always carry some measure of Disendowment, but the exact amount has never been a matter which appealed to me very strongly from one point or another. I quite agree that the attitude taken up toy the Noble Lord makes it of no use to try to make any settlement whatever.
  Lord H. CECIL: But there is the attitude of the Leader of the House!
  Sir D. MACLEAN: The Noble Lord does not seem to recognise at all that there is an Act on the Statute Book.
  Lord H. CECIL: But the Home Secretary said that that Act could not be carried, out unless something of this kind was done.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I must leave the Home Secretary to explain that himself. I am here to discharge what I think is the duty of any Member sitting on these benches, and holding the views that I do, and that is to make a strong protest against the National Treasury being used to settle what, after all, should be a matter to be settled by the public bodies in Wales with the Welsh Church. The House of Commons, in my judgment, should intervene under the circumstances in that dispute which ought to have been settled as between the public, bodies in Wales, and without the intervention of the House of Commons.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: The general view of all parties in Wales is, in my opinion, that the Welsh Church should not be placed in a worse position as a result of the War than it would have been if there had been no war. That is, I think, a very reasonable and sound position for the public and all parties to take up. What are the facts? If the Disendowment Clauses were entirely repealed, the Welsh Church would still be in a worse position than it was before the War. In other words, the Welsh Church, with her Endowments and after-war conditions and prices, would be in a worse position than she would be without her Endowments and with pre-war conditions and prices. It must always be remembered that the Welsh Church is and always has been financially a very poor Church. No less than seventy-five incumbents in Wales receive to-day less than £150 per annum from Endowments. This Bill is an equitable attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to adjust the financial difficulties due to the War having been so very prolonged. Substantial justice is done by the Bill to the Welsh county councils, as the advance of a million sterling releases them from the necessity of raising a special rate to carry out the terms of the Welsh Church Act so far as it applies to the property they are taking over. The Bill also puts the county councils in possession of this handsome amount of property at a very much earlier period than they could possibly get possession of it without this Bill. I say, therefore, the Bill, so far as the county councils and the ratepayers of

  477
  Wales are concerned, does substantial justice. The Bill does some justice to the Welsh Church. For instance, I listened with interest to what the Home Secretary said about lapsed interests. But in any case, whatever the law may be held to be as to the right or otherwise of lapsed interests, the Bill makes the position of the Welsh Church absolutely clear and above dispute. It is an advantage to have a Clause in the Bill clearing up any ambiguity on this head.
  The Bill includes a number of administrative Amendments which have proved of very considerable value to the Welsh Church. It is of vital importance to the Welsh Church and Welsh Churcnmen to know as promptly as possible the future financial position, so that they may have time before the date of Disestablishment to make all the necessary arrangements. The Welsh Church is in a very serious position. There is the impossibility at the present time of raising large sums of money to replace the money lost by Disendowment. If there had been no war, in my view, it would have been a comparatively easy matter to have raised the necessary money to replace these. Endowments; but the position now is entirely different. We had an example a short time ago in the case of the Church of England. That Church decided that they would raise £5,000,000 in the whole of England and Wales. They brought forward a great scheme, and I think it was magnificently advertised, and one came across very able advertisements setting out the full position, and they asked for £5,000,000 sterling. After a most extensive propaganda, the whole of this wealthy country produced less than 20 per cent. of what they asked for. That was practically a fiasco, and when you have that experience what chance has poor little Wales of raising this money to replace the Endowments?
  Wales, like the Welsh Church and other people, has to face the great rise in prices. The Church cannot continue to pay incumbents at the old rates. I have already mentioned how very low the incumbents stipends are at the present time, and there are a very large number who have very little more than the figure I have mentioned. If this Bill is passed before the Recess it will greatly assist in putting the affairs of the Welsh Church in order. As Chairman of the Finance Committee of the representative body of the Church in Wales I can speak
  478
  with some knowledge of the actual position. I wish to appeal to the Government to favourably consider two Amendments in Committee. The first is as regards churchyards which are hallowed by centuries, and which I hope the Government will see their way to leave in possession of the Church, making provision for full security for the Nonconformist rights and feelings. I do not think there will be any difficulty in providing a satisfactory settlement which will meet the views of Wales on this subject.
  9.0 P.M.
  The other matter which I hope the Government will favourably consider is to secure to the Church the Endowments other than tithe. This is not a large figure, and I believe the total value of those Endowments is comparatively a few thousands a year, and I think the Government might fairly meet our appeal in this direction. The Bill is primarily a Welsh question. We have heard a great deal in the last few months of self-determination. All we ask is that this shall be left to us to settle in Wales. The Welsh Parliamentary party accept the Bill, and we Welshmen are grateful to our English friends for their help in the past, and we look forward to their help in the future in raising the very considerable sums of money that will still be required by the Welsh Church. We heard a very able speech from the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil), with much of which I was in agreement, but not all. I hope they will permit us to settle this matter now and get the Bill passed at once. I may state that the Parliamentary Committee of the governing body of the Welsh Church has given the matter full consideration, and they were empowered by the governing body to deal with it, and to-day they have passed a resolution, which I will read to the House, as it sets out the position of the Welsh Church:
  "This Committee, having carefully considered the provisions of the Welsh Church Bill, while reaffirming its conviction against the principle of Disendowment, realises so strongly the urgent need of an immediate settlement that it is prepared to accept the Bill, although regretting the non-inclusion in the Bill of the retention of ancient and unenclosed churchyards, and endowment other than tithe"
  So that, whilst there is no bargain of any kind, and I would like to make that absolutely clear, here is a settlement proposed that is agreeable—not that either side may be absolutely pleased with it, but it does meet the views of the great mass of Welshmen, and I hope that it will receive

  479
  the support of this House. In these days of unrest all resources are needed for carrying on the work of religion. If the Government can see their way to grant the two concessions I have mentioned, they will go a long way to reconcile Churchmen to Disendowment, which they hate so much. It would do much to end the bitterness caused by old religious controversies, and would greatly facilitate all religious bodies in Wales working more closely together for the good of all Wales. It is for these reasons that I commend this Bill to the House, and I hope that by passing it into law we may at last bring to an end a controversy that has caused more "friction in Wales than residents in England can understand, or probably believe. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I cordially agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet who said that he did not want the Welsh Church to be any worse off than before the War. I am in exactly the same position, but I do not want the Church to be any better off as well. I believe this measure of Disestablishment should be accompanied by a measure of Disendowment, and in that I am just as conscientious in my opinion as any hon. Member could be. The Welsh Church Act, after it had been passed, had its operation suspended by the Suspensory Bill. But it is now on the Statute Book. I well recollect that when the Suspensory Bill was brought in the statement was made that whatever Bill was suspended nobody was to suffer by these suspensions. But I maintain that the suspensions of the Welsh Church Act is going to militate very seriously against the interests of the local authorities. The commutation value of existing interests is included in a return presented by Mr. McKenna in 1915. The value of the existing interests of those who held benefices at that time amounted to £2,150,000. Today we are asked to vote a sum of £3,400,000, a difference of a million and a quarter.
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: You are not asked to vote it.
  Mr. JONES: In using the word "asked" I was wrong no doubt, but the fact remains that the present Bill, the commutation value is £3,400,000 as against the 1915 value of £2,160,000, and I want to know how the difference is accounted for.
  480
  The Home Secretary in an admirable elucidatory speech attempted to explain this. He pointed out that the tithe had advanced from 77, at the date of the passing of the Bill to 136, the anticipated figure at the actual date of Disestablishment at March, 1920. That, I am told, accounts for half a million of money. In addition there is the value of the interests to be computed. Money cannot be now obtained at 3½ pr cent. It brings in 5 per cent. These two items may account for the million and a quarter which is to be paid to the. Church entirely as a result of the suspension of the Act. In my opinion that should not be allowed, and I believe that the payment of this money by the Treasury for this purpose constitutes a precedent most dangerous which might be followed in the future. I have my doubts as to whether the million and a quarter will be sufficient however, and I will tell the House why.
  The Home Secretary has calculated the tithe at 136, but the Noble Lord elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the fact that he is going to pay at least a quarter of a million on account of rates. I venture to say that under the present arrangement, that sum is absolutely inadequate. Let us look at the rates as they now stand and compare them with those for the three years preceding the date of the passing of the Act. The average rate paid when tithes stood at seventy-seven—and I am taking figures for my own county—show that the moiety which the incumbent bore—the average moiety in my own county—was £291 10s. 8d. before the War, whereas last year the levy will amount to £l,035. [It is clear, therefore, that the sum has gone up from £291 to £1,035, and looking at it in this way the Treasury moiety is practically doubled. I therefore venture to say that the quarter of a million which the Home Secretary said he would have to provide, in addition to the million he is going to grant to the county councils, is absolutely inadequate. It will be a far larger sum, and I feel that if any rearrangement is to be made it ought to be made in the financial Clauses of this Bill and not by granting money from the Treasury. If that were done, then we should have a clear issue between us. The Government have, in fact, taken the short cut, the line of least resistance. They axe handing over this money to enable the Church Commissioners to commute, otherwise the Act would have been a dead

  481
  letter. The honest tiling would have been to say that the War had altered everything, that interests had gone up, that the tithes had gone up, and that, therefore, it was fair and equitable that the whole thing should be rearranged and a fair balance drawn as between both parties. If that course had been adopted, good will would have prevailed. I think it is most unfair that the Government should have had recourse to a Grant from the Treasury for this purpose instead of enabling the House to go fully into the financial position. They are endowing the Church in this way. The tithe has been stablised at 109, and any layman can commute at that figure; but the moment the Welsh Church Commissioners seek to commute they have to do it at an average of 136. This Bill distinctly says that, for the purpose of annuities for the clergy, the yare to be paid at the rate of 136. That is simply a method of subsidising the Church in an indirect way. I may be right or wrong. I am simply giving my own views. I respect the views of the party opposite. I believe they are as conscientious in their view as I am in mine. But let us be quite honest over the matter. I put it to them that it is not straight business to compel an incumbent to accept 109 and for the Church body to get 136 for the tithe and to put the balance in an endowment fund. I go further and say that it is a sorry day for this House and the country when we begin to dole out of the Treasury—which is living not on it sin come but on borrowed capital—£1,000,000 when they are asking the people to save and exercise all the economy they can in order to meet the appalling debt of the country. Here, rather than make a fair rectification of what has occurred through the War, you are asking a depleted Treasury to hand over £1,000,000, and you ask this House to ratify that bargain. It may be ratified here, but I will be no party to it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chester (Sir O. Philipps) said that he knew a good deal of Wales. I live in Wales and am there practically the whole of my time except when I am in this House. I am perfectly certain there is great feeling on the matter there. I am already beginning to be deluged with letters protesting against the voting of millions of money for the purpose of Church endowment. The matter could have been arranged equitably if we had only put our heads together without going to the Treasury. I protest most vigorously
  482
  against this, the first step in a policy which may lead to a great deal of mischief in the future. I will be no party to a measure of this kind. If in Committee I can move Amendments, it will be my duty to do so to try to get some of the anomalies which exist in this Bill put right. I hope that hon. Members opposite who think differently, when they see that the object I have in view is simply to set right what I believe is an anomaly, will give me their assistance.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: I, too, with the hon. Member who has just sat down, regret that I can have no part or lot in this Bill. I believe that it is the wrong way to tackle the problem, that it will not lead to good will or to a final settlement, and further that it is a gross betrayal of the interests of the Church in Wales. I confess that on this question I have a. past—that is to say, I have fought two General Elections for a Welsh constituency against the Act which is now on the Statute Book. During those elections and during the Parliaments which followed them, I took up a perfectly definite line. In the last Parliament, until this Act was put on the Statute Book, I opposed it quite frankly on the ground of principle. My principle was that the Welsh county councils had no right to the tithe, that the Welsh universities had no right to the glebe, that the churchyards belonged to the Church and should not be taken away, and that the Welsh dioceses were a part of the Province of Canterbury and should not be separated from that Province without the express decision of the ecclesiastical authorities of that Province. Those were the four points I took. The Act, under peculiar circumstances, was placed on the Statute Book. I remember being asked by the Bishop of St. Asaph to attend a conference at Shrewsbury and to move a resolution, not merely demanding the reconsideration of the terms of Disendowment which were placed by the Act on the Church in Wales, but asking for the total repeal of the Disendowment Sections of the Act. That resolution was submitted to an Assembly of the Church in Wales, and was carried unanimously. I am amazed to hear to-night that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chester (Sir O. Philipps) says that the Welsh Church accepts this Bill. Has the Welsh laity been consulted? This Bill was only printed the day before yesterday, and we did not get the White Paper until this morning. No, it is a bit of episcopal tyranny behind

  483
  the backs of the Welsh laity. I for one, until Welsh laymen in Wales have expressed their view upon the details of this Bill, will not give my support to its furtherance or any enactment of it in any shape or form. Why? There seems to be no ground of principle in this Bill.
  We have had a most illuminating speech from the Home Secretary. I hope that every Welsh layman will read that speech. He tells us that the lapsed interests are secured to the Church under the old Act. He tells us further that, in the event of the Act coming into force, the commutation of tithe will in any case be on the basis of £136: Therefore, all that we have been Jed by the bishops to believe are advantages to the Church are not secured by this Bill but are in the old Act as it stands now. There is one very important thing which has not been made clear—that is that not one single penny of the amount that was to be secularised under the old Act is to be given back to the Church, but all of it is to be secularised, as provided in the old Act. Those Conservatives and Unionists who supported the Coalition at the last election understood perfectly clearly from our leaders that there was to be reconsideration of the terms of Disendowment. We understood that to mean, at least, that the glebe and the churchyards were to be given back to the Church. In fact, it was generally understood that tithe was to remain with the endowments to come back to the Church. Not one single penny of the amount that was secularised by the Act of 1914 is to be given back to the Church. It is all to be secularised, and money which has hitherto been devoted to religious purposes is, in the year 1950, to be devoted by the county councils to secular schemes for baths and the like. We cannot accept that, because we opposed it on principle, and we are bound to go on opposing it on principle. If we once get away from the principle we imperil the whole ground upon which the Church of England holds its endowments. If it is right to take away from the Church religious property devoted to the services of religion in Wales, it is equally right to take it away from Nonconformist bodies in England or Wales, or from churches in England or Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom. If once we get away from that principle it seems to me that we imperil the whole honour of the Church, the whole ground upon which the Church fought the
  484
  Bill, the whole ground upon which the bishops left off attending to their episcopal duties and came into the open and engaged in a political fight.
  What is of most importance in the Bill is, I need hardly say, Clause 1. If Clause 1 is not passed, I believe that Disendowment will never come into operation—that is to say, if the Welsh Commissioners cease to exist, as they do under the existing law by the end of this year, and the deposit of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey does not come before that date, the whole of the Act of 1914 as regards Disendowment falls to the ground. We are asked in Clause 1, in a word, to re-enact Disendowment as a whole. I for one cannot be a party to the re-enactment of Disendowment, which I believe to be wrong on principle and in practice. Surely the whole principle of the Coalition was that it should be give and take; that if those of us who have supported the Welsh Church would accept Disestablishment, or even partial Disendowment, some arrangement might be come to. But we have been told by the Home Secretary perfectly clearly that this Bill contains no re-endowment of the Church from the funds which I maintain morally belong to it. I believe that the Welsh county councils have not got a moral right to a single farthing, and until I am absolutely beaten over that I cannot support it.
  I am amazed to see the name of the learned Solicitor-General on this Bill. He was one of the staunchest Church defenders in the last Parliament, and now his name is on this, one of the most disgraceful Bills which I believe has ever been introduced into Parliament, for the re-enactment of Disendowment without attempting to meet the root principles of those who were opposed to the original Act. The mere fact that in this Bill there is no mention of the grievance which Churchmen felt most bitterly of all, namely, the confiscation of their churchyards, stamps the Bill as one which has been brought out in a hurry, without open consultation or open diplomacy of any kind, and which is brought into this House without any consultation with those who have been the lay leaders of the Church in the past. I believe that the most disastrous results to the reputation of the Government outside will follow when the provisions of the Bill come to be known. I venture to say that when Churchmen read the speech of the Home Secretary delivered in this House

  485
  to-night, and when they read the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Ox-ford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), there will be a real outcry. Instead of openly asking the Welsh Nonconformists and Church people to come together and see if they could settle their differences in open court, by this Cabinet bargain we have been sold by the Unionist leaders in the matter. Under these circumstances, there will not be peace in Wales, and you will find many laymen like myself, who have been connected with the Church in Wales, who will not be content to come any more under the dictation of the bishops in a matter like this.
  Sir E. JONES: I am afraid that we are going to get, after all, into the spirit of the old controversies that are quite irrelevant to this Bill, and that is the reason why, having decided to keep quiet, I, as one of the Welsh Members, intervene in this Debate. I can quite understand and respect the position of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but for the benefit of several new Members of the House who happen to be here to-night but who were not here during the earlier controversies, and are probably not suite clear as to the issues, I want to distinguish for them and to ask their consideration of two very different propositions. The proposition that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and by one of my colleagues who was a dissentient from the majority of the other Welsh Members, is a proposition that goes to the root of the original Bill. The hon. Member's standpoint, which I quite understand, is that he will never rest until he gets some reconsideration of the original Bill. I want to suggest to the House that this is not a time to go into that, and this is not a Bill that enters into that at all. We are not here to-night in any way to amend the original Bill in any essential point. We start, in the words of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Haydn Jones), from the position that the Church was not to be deemed to have gained on the one hand nor the local authorities on the other, but that they were to be in the same position, as the result of the postponement due to the War, as if the War had not taken place. This is a Bill which is attempting simply to see that both sides of the controversy are in the same position as before.
  The hon. Member made a rather violent attack on his one-time leaders, the Welsh bishops. But how have the Welsh
  486
  bishops come to the position they are in I think it is fair that the House should know. The Government said, "We will have actuarial calculations made, and if it is true that as a result of the War the Church on the one hand has made any loss as compared with its position under the original Bill, then, whatever the loss is, it shall be made up to the Church. If, on the other hand, there has been a loss made by the other side, it shall be made up to them. "The Coalition Members of the Government and the bishops, on the one hand, and, I believe, the majority of the Welsh Members when it was put to them lately, said that that was a fair arrangement. It has turned out, as a result of the actuarial and official inquiries, that the Church has made no floss. It has turned" out, on the other hand, that as the Bill now stands it could not be carried out without making a bankrupt of every county council in Wales. That is quits clear. According to my hon. Friend, and there is a good deal to be said for his point of view, it turns out in a substantial enrichment of the Church as compared with what their position would have been if the original Act had taken effect in 1915, which was the original date. We have tried to take a middle view. We have tried to go into these figures as well as we could, and I should like just briefly to explain to the House what is really the meaning of these figures, and to dissipate a little of the confusion that there has been up to now in the Debate. If it were not for the commutation Clauses of the original Act, none of this bother or difficulty would have arisen, and this Bill would not have been necessary, nor any other Bill like it. The original basis of the Bill was that the tithe was, after the date of Disestablishment, to belong to the county councils and not to the individual incumbents, but there was an obligation upon the county councils to continue to pay during the life of an existing incumbent. If that had been allowed to stand, as the different incumbents died or removed out of Wales the tithe rent-charge belonging to their benefices would fall in, and by the time all the incumbents who were having a right to a benefice at the date of the Act would all have died out, all the tithe rent-charges would have fallen in. It was felt on both sides that that would have been rather an inconvenient process, to wait for these things to happen one at a time. Therefore, rather late in the negotiations

  487
  and in the stages of the Bill, it was suggested, Why not bring in a financial scheme to commute the whole of those interests on an annuity basis from the very start 1 It is the fact that that scheme of commuting the whole of the interests was finally introduced into the Bill that has created all this difficulty. It is purely a financial difficulty that we are dealing with to-night, unless, of course, you are going to raise a totally separate issue—namely, the principle of the Bill.
  As the original Act now stands, the Church need not accept that commutation scheme. It was optional for the Church to say, "We will have the original form. Let the tithe rent-charges revert to the new authorities as the incumbents die out one by one. "But instead of that they could, on giving notice in writing, demand the payment by the Welsh Commissioners in a lump sum, that they will have to borrow for the purpose, of the whole commuted value of all these life interests. The Tithe Bill of 1918 struck at the root of that. We protested at the time, and pointed out that if that Tithe Bill were carried it would strike at the root of the Welsh Act as it stood, but we could not prevent the Bill passing. Therefore, the position is this: If the Church chooses, and takes up the option offered in the Bill, as I understand it does, it will ask that the whole of these life interests shall be commuted. That will mean that the Welsh Commissioners, who are to administer the Bill, have got to buy out the calculated value of all the life interests and pay that over to the Church representative body. Then you came up against this difficulty—that they would have to buy out these existing life interests at 136, or thereabouts, owing to the effect of the War on the price of wheat and the change in the septennial averages, and in the original Act they will have to commute all these in a lump sum at 136. But the amount that they will receive from year to year from these charges in the meantime will only be 109, because 109 is fixed in the Act of 1918. Therefore, it is not strictly correct to say that the county councils are going to get this money They will never see a farthing of it. It is the Welsh Commissioners who have to administer this Act of commutation. The Welsh Commissioners have to hand over to the Church the value of these commuted interests at 136. But the Welsh county councils will, under the new
  488
  scheme, never get a penny till 1950 to start with. Then in 1950 they will get exactly what they would have had under the original Act, and that is what we are arriving at.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the last paragraph of the Government White Paper, which says the Welsh county councils will get £200,000 a year, while it was stated they would only get £150,000 a year?
  Sir E. JONES: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will calculate the interest on £150,000 from the original date he will find, and we were told so by the actuary, that £150,000 and £200,000 in 1950 mean exactly the same thing. I said there was hopeless confusion in the minds of some hon. Members.
  Mr. H. JONES: The amount will not be the same on account of the interest, but on account of the value of the tithe being higher.
  Sir E. JONES: It is the change of date from 1941 to 1950. I am sure the Home-Secretary will confirm that, that it means-the same thing, and the Welsh county councils are not going to get an extra penny in the end. I can assure the Noble Lord and other Friends here that the Welsh Members were the last people in the world who wanted to reopen this old controversy, and I am very pleased to find that, contrary to the speeches of the Noble Lord in this House, throughout the whole of these three years, when the laymen of the Welsh Church and the parish, clergy got the chance, they followed the line that we always said they would, and not the line the Noble Lord said they would take. They have met in their assembly and have decided that they are going to have a National Church of their own. They have asked voluntarily to be severed from the; Province of Canterbury, and to be allowed to have their own Archbishop, and the bishops from that Church have said, in the middle of all this muddle, "For the sake of peace, leave us Welsh people alone! Clear up this financial thing that is due to your Tithe Act of 1918, and its interference with natural operations, and put us all exactly where we were under the original Act, and we are willing not to reopen the business and to settle down as Christian people in the job that, Heaven knows, is difficult

  489
  enough, of trying to bring a better nature among the people amongst whom we live."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I wish to say a very few words about this Bill, and I speak with a great sense of responsibility. No one in this House, I think, has opposed Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales longer or more vigorously than I have. I remember making my maiden speech against the Welsh Suspensory Bill in 1893, and I have consistently fought Disestablishment in England or in Wales ever since I have been in any way connected with politics. I have not changed my principles. I object to Disestablishment as a principle. I object to Disendowment, and if I am asked whether I like the present position, I say without hesitation that I do not like it. This Bill confirms in a sense the Welsh Church Act that was passed five years ago. It commits the country to Disestablishment in Wales. It will take away from the Church in Wales and from religion, and devote to secular purposes, something like £900,000. I cannot say that I am enthusiastic for that. I do not think it is a very good peace offering that we can make at this moment. But what is the position? Five years have elapsed since the Act was passed. Great changes have occurred in the five years. We find now that the Act cannot be carried out as it was originally intended. The alteration in the value of tithe has had this result, that if commutation is to be carried out the Welsh county councils will be bankrupt. The Welsh Commissioners come to an end, and if they are to do their work their tenure of office has to be renewed. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, whatever happens, that the Bill should be passed now either for the purpose of enabling the Act to become law or else to repeal the Act and institute a different policy altogether.
  What were we to do? We could, if we had liked, have taken up the position which we took up in the year 1914. We could have demanded the repeal of the Act. It might have been consistent on our part if we had done that. It might have saved my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House from the attacks of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). But I ask the House,
  490
  Would it have been wise and would it have been statesmanlike and would it have succeeded? Supposing those of us who have opposed Disestablishment and Disendowment from the beginning now took the fiery cross through the country and said that we would repudiate this Bill and this policy, and would endeavour to get up an agitation for the repeal of the old Act. If we had done that, we should have made a great mistake and we should never have succeeded in our object. Not only so, but we should have rearoused those feelings of religious bitterness which used, unfortunately, to prevail in the Principality and have prevailed ever since I can remember, but which the War, I am thankful to say, has done very much to get rid of. We should have failed in our object, and in the end, probably, a very much worse Bill, from the Church point of view, would have been carried into law by a Coalition Government, or, it may have been, by a Liberal Government. An Act of some sort was necessary. The existing Act cannot come into law without amendment. It would have ruined the Welsh county councils. Its administration would have been impossible. There was an opportunity of endeavouring to come to some kind of fair compromise which would leave the Church far better off than she would have been under the original Act, and which would solve the difficulties of administration and the financial difficulties of the Welsh county councils. Though I say, without hesitation, that I do not like the policy, that I dislike Disestablishment, and that I have not changed my opinion and do not change my opinion on Disendowment, the only wise and statesmanlike course is the course which has been adopted by responsible representatives of the governing body of the Church in Wales, and to agree with the Government on a Bill of this sort, which, of course, may be capable of amendment in some particulars, which will give far better terms, in fact, to the Church than she would have got under the original Act, and which will, I hope, settle this controversy, so far as Wales is concerned, for all time to come. Therefore, though I do not alter my opinion, my strong advice to all my Friends in this House is that they should accept this Bill, possibly with Amendments in some particulars, which I will not enter into at the present moment, as the best solution of a very difficult problem.
  I have referred to the fact of the old difficulty and the dangerous politico-

  491
  religious controversy in Wales. I was born and bred in Wales, and I can remember nothing from my youth up except this, that a Churchman was a Tory and a Tory was a Churchman, and that a Liberal was a Nonconformist and a Nonconformist was a Liberal, and whether it was a Parliamentary election or a county council election or a parish council election the Church and the Conservatives voted on one side—more on religious questions than they voted on political questions—and the Nonconformists and Liberals voted on the other side. Does anybody tell me that that is good for religion in Wales? It is the worst possible thing that could happen. If we can get rid of that horrible politico-religious feeling in Wales, the Principality will be the better for it for all time to come. Now we have the chance. I am speaking not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a member of the governing body of the Church in Wales, and I know that, though the majority of the members do not like Disestablishment, though they would sooner see the Act repealed, there is a very strong feeling, which is growing in Wales, that the severance of the Church in Wales, I will not say from the Church of England, but from a province of the Church of England, and the setting up of a separate Welsh province, getting rid for ever of any meaning in the cry of "an alien Church," and creating a Church in Wales, managed by Welsh Churchmen, having its own great history, built up in the history of the Principality, drawing its source of inspiraton from its central union with the Church of England, but at the same time a real national Welsh Church; 1 say that that feeling which is growing up is going to do much for the Church and for religion in Wales, and, in my opinion, if the Church is not absolutely crippled in finance, and she will not be under the terms of this Bill, in a few years' time the old Church in Wales, maligned, misrepresented, us she often has been in the past, will be found to be the biggest, the strongest, and the greatest power in the whole of the Principality. Therefore, we should be very unwise to refuse assent to this measure. I see in this measure the possibility of a great future for the Church and for religion in Wales. I see in it a chance of burying the hatchet so that the religiously-minded men in Wales, be they Churchmen or Nonconformists, may stand together
  492
  for the preservation of religion in the Principality, which, after all, is the biggest thing at the present moment. I hope that this attempt to oppose this Bill and to discredit those who are supporting the Bill and to charge people like the Leader of the House with inconsistency or immorality, and to say that if the Conservative party is returned to power we will repeal the old Act or we will restore all the endowments, is really to deal with a situation which does not exist, and which never will exist. Therefore, much as I dislike the principle on which the original Act was founded, yet I feel I am able to accept this Bill, and in doing so I believe that I am acting loyally to the leaders of the Welsh Church who have made this bargain or arrangement, or whatever you chose to call it, with the Government which, of course, must be confirmed by Parliament, and which, I believe, is the best thing that can be. done in the present situation.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I intervene for a few minutes to put before the House the view of the Labour party. The Noble-Lord the Member for the Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made a most bitter and brutal attack upon the Leader of the House. I have not been a Member of the House for many months, but I must confess that the Leader of the House has always acted kindly and generously whenever he his addressed, the House, and whether I agree with everything that he has said in this House or not lie has always been earnest and sincere in. what he has said. The Noble Lord also accused the Leader of the House, in view of the pledges which he has made when the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment was being discussed in this House, of agreeing with undisguised robbery and doing an injury to religion and breaking the promise which he had. made that whenever a Unionist Government took its place in this House, the Disestablishment Act would be repealed. I have yet to learn that a Unionist Government is in office. The Leader of the House is only a member of a Coalition Government up to now, and no pledge has been broken so far as he is concerned until such time as he becomes the Prime Minister of a Unionist Government. I am not going to touch upon the financial side of the question; I have heard my Friend on the other side of the House who is an extreme Churchman, and I have heard my

  493
  Friend on this side who is an extreme Nonconformist. I am a trade union leader, and it is my duty always to try to bring both employers and workmen together, and to try to bring the two extreme ends together by taking a moderate view this evening.
  10.0 P.M.
  I am the son of an old Nonconformist, and my old dad would have died, so far as fighting for religious liberty in Wales was concerned. He suffered a great amount of tyranny and oppression in these early days because he was a Nonconformist, and I have had it turned into me ever since I have been a child. Some of the Members who have spoken on this Bill have never been down a mine working, and have never been in a tin works or a steel works working; but I have seen Church boys and Nonconformist boys working alongside each other, and not speaking to each other for years, owing to this religious controversy. During the period of the War that has all been killed. Church boys and Welsh Nonconformist boys have been making munitions, working in steel works, and fighting alongside each other in the trenches. Are we now, in the sacred name of these boys, who have sacrificed so much on behalf of their country, going to allow a controversy of this kind to be raised again, and to create bitterness once more? Another thing you have to consider is this: The amount involved is very small. You on the other side have made great promises of reconstruction. We want houses and various other things. It is our duty as a House, and we have promised, to assist the Government in any great measures they bring forward so far as reconstruction is concerned. Let us devote our minds to greater things than the paltry matters which have been raised this evening. I think that that is the solution of the difficulties with which we are faced. I hope that the House will unanimously support the Government, and give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the general principles and the objects with which this Bill is brought forward, I cannot do better than associate myself absolutely with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I have noticed that in military matters the very worst position is that a force should be subjected to two fires. In this question I do not think that the same thing is true.
  494
  I think it possible that the House may come to the conclusion that a Bill which is attacked with equal bitterness by those who represent the extreme view on both sides is possibly the Bill which does represent the desire of the nation as a whole. My Noble Friend the Member for the Oxford University spoke of me in terms of bitterness which rather surprised me. I have been so long free from attack that it was perhaps a useful stimulus, and I do not in the least resent it. One of the things which he said, and which I must say did surprise me, was that I had qualified to take a place in a Jesuit College. Well, I do not suppose that that can happen in this life. Nobody can say with certainty what his future may be in some other sphere. I hardly anticipate that that will happen to me, but if it does, although after the speech of my Noble Friend to-night I would not expect to be very kindly treated, yet I would rather face the evil I know than the unknown, and in that case I hope I may be billeted in one of the Jesuit colleges of which my Noble Friend is certain to be the head.
  I do not like to deal with these charges of breach of faith. I say this with some strength, that nothing can be worse than that there should be doubt about the good faith of public men, and although I admit that if there is ground for such accusation it is quite right that it should be made, on the other hand I do contend that to make it without clear ground is one of the greatest disservices which can be done to our public life. What is the ground on which this charge is based? My Noble Friend quoted a number of speeches, in all of which I expressed the view, which I still hold, that the State had no right to take the Endowments from the Welsh Church. But does my Noble Friend or anyone suggest that if in fighting a proposal of this kind you put forth your best efforts to defeat it you are bound for all time to take steps to upset what has been done by Parliament? That charge cannot be substantiated. The ground on which the charge is made is this: On 21st April, 1914. I said this,
  "If a Unionist Government is returned to power I am sure that one of the first things that Government will do will be to restore to the Church in Wales the funds of which you are depriving it."
  Obviously, therefore, that pledge can apply only if a Unionist Government is returned to power. My Noble Friend recognised that, and he said a Unionist Government

  495
  is in power. How does he justify that? He tells me that my right hon. Friend (the Prime Minister) can do nothing unless I agree to it. That is time on the one assumption that the members of the party which I have the honour to lead will follow me, and will not all act, as my Noble Friend does, in taking a lead of his own whenever he desires to do so. It is perfectly true that that gives us the power to prevent things being done; it gives me absolutely no power to do anything, for obviously my right hon. Friend, though he cannot command a majority without the support of Unionist Members, can prevent the Government of which he is the head doing anything, and can take whatever steps he likes to test the country as to whether a Unionist Government ought to carry on the government of this country. At the meeting of our party before the last election, when the advice I gave that we should fight it as a Coalition was. unanimously accepted, I stated, in the most explicit terms, which nobody could misunderstand, that the taking of that decision meant that we could not go back after an election with the same policy as we would have adopted if we had gone back as a Unionist party alone. Is there a Member of this House, however strong he may feel on this or any other question, who does not recognise that although there is a Unionist majority in this House, yet a very large number of those Members were returned with the help of Liberal votes, which were given to them not as Unionists but because they were pledged to support the Coalition Government, of which my right hon. Friend was the head? I was told at the time of the election that a great many of our candidates—I hope it was not true of myself; I would rather have stood on my own bottom—had this poster circulated on their behalf:
  " Every vote given for ߪ is a vote for Lloyd George."
  To say that we are returned as a Unionist party is one of the most absurd claims ever made. I cannot understand how anyone can make that charge. My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) was quite clear about it. He left the Coalition Government for the specific reason that my right hon. Friend and I refused to give an undertaking that if we were returned we would demand that the whole of the endowments should be returned. I hope I have said enough to dispose of that particular charge.
  496
  Now we come to the merits of the question, and that is much more important. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University suggested that the arrangement that we had come to with the Church Council in Wales was arrived at because we were dealing with simple bishops, and that if they had had information that all that this Act was doing was to give them something which they could get without it, then they would never have come to such an arrangement. As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary I was impressed with the success with which the simple bishops and I myself had pressed our view upon the Government and upon my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly true, in my opinion, that this Bill gives the Church nothing to which, under the Act of 1914, it is not entitled, but it does do this. The net result is that the Church is better to the extent of a revenue of £50,000 a year than it would have been if Disestablishment had taken place prior to the War. It is quite true that, in my view, the Church is entitled to that, and that if would be unjust to deprive her of it. What follows? The Church is entitled to it, but it can only get without an Act of Parliament what the Church Commissioners have to give. That seems to me overlooked.
  The alternative to the course I have adopted would be obviously for the party which supports the Church in Wales, for our party, to say that we will have no compromise of this kind, that we will go again on party lines, that we will fight another election as a Unionist party. Well, if we do, the Church in Wales will, I suppose, gain from a financial point of view, though I venture to express the opinion that on larger grounds, from the point of view of what the strength of the Welsh Church will be in future, it would lose rather than gain by such a gamble. That is my view. Look at what it means. You have to take the chance of winning that election without a new Bill. All that can happen is that the Welsh Church will make this claim; the Commissioners have not the money to give; they can sue the Commissioners. They could not sue the Government. They might have a right to the money, but they would not get it. The arrangements we have made is that the Church does get this additional sum of money, and is thus enabled to carry on the work enormously better than would have been the case. It is said that the

  497
  bishops did not understand the arrangement. I want the House of Commons to understand that the views expressed by my Noble Friend and those who have supported him do not represent in the smallest degree the views or wishes of the Church in Wales.
  Those who are entitled to speak for the Church in Wales look upon themselves as trustees for the interests of that Church. They are not prepared to make the Church for why they are responsible a pawn in any political manœuvre. They have got to look at the interests of the Church and of the Church alone. That is the position, and it is really absurd to suggest that it is only bishops who have taken part in these negotiations and in these arrangements. I was told by my be Friend that for the rest of my political life I would be hampered at every turn because of the Church which I betrayed. Will the House allow me to read a letter which I have received from the Bishop of St. Asaph, who is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Welsh Church and who alone is the one man entitled to speak for that Church:
  "Dear Mr. Bonar Law,
  I have studied carefully the draft of the "Welsh Church Temporalities Bill, and although the Bill does not fulfil the wishes and hopes I entertained I am prepared to accept it as it stands. I say this because I am confident that whatever the disappointment of the Churchmen in Wales may be, they will gladly welcome an immediate settlement which gives promise of permanency and co-operation for the future."
  That is the letter I have received from the spokesman of this Church which I have betrayed. It does not end there. There has been throughout to represent the interests of the Welsh Church a Parliamentary Committee. It consists of four Welsh bishops and of representative laymen from every diocese in Wales. They have considered this Bill. They, too, have passed a resolution which was read I understand by an hon. Member of this House, and I will read it also to the House:
  "This Committee having carefully considered the provisions of the Welsh Church Temporalities Bill, while reaffirming its conviction against the principle of Disendowment, realises so strongly the urgent need of an immediate settlement that it is prepared to accept the Bill, although regretting the non-inclusion in it of ancient churchyards and endowments other than tithes."
  There is the position. The Church does not pretend that it has received everything it would like. I do not suggest that.
  498
  I should have liked to see even; a larger Grant given to the Church in Wales. I should, but the House is under a great misapprehension if it is under the impression that in dealing with questions of this kind I go to my right hon. Friend as an opponent trying to drive the hardest bargain. It is not on that basis that this Government is being conducted, and it is not on that basis that it could last for a week. That could not be done. We discuss these problems together, and I have been dealing with this one, I may say, at frequent meetings of those interested in the Church of Wales for months. We discuss these problems not merely from the point of view of being fair to the different interests which are represented with the Coalition; we discuss them on broader grounds than that, and on this ground, that the only justification for a Government of this kind is that it should aim, in these old party controversies, at finding some middle course which will commend itself to the good sense and good feeling of the mass of the people of this country. That is the basis on which we have gone, and I believe that the arrangement is a justification for our attempts. I am going to say nothing more. I am not going into the merits of this arrangement. I think I have justified my share in it by showing to the House that I have satisfied those who alone are entitled to speak for the Church in Wales that I have made an arrangement which ought to be accepted. I think I have fulfilled my task, but I was sorry, not at all for the views that may be held about me by my Noble Friend, though I do not mean to say that I would not like his respect if I could get it, not for that reason, but for the opinion which may be held by Churchmen in Wales and by Churchmen in England and in Scotland as well. He said that I had got what I wanted, by bullying my right hon. Friend, I suppose, in regard to Colonial Preference, because I cared for it. The trade policy has not yet been put before the House of Commons. We are dealing with it in precisely the same spirit in which we have dealt with the Welsh Church. I cannot guarantee that when the time comes there might not be some—I hope they will be equally few and equally unreasonable—who will take the view which has been taken by my Noble Friend on this occasion, but I do not like, and I think it is unjust, that there should be any suggestion that I have not used whatever

  499
  influence was in my power in the interests of the Welsh Church as strongly as I should use it in the interests of any other cause for which I felt strongly. Throughout the whole struggle in connection with that Bill, though I am not a member of the Church of England, to the best of my ability I have fought it as strenuously as I could fight any cause, and I was glad to be able to fight it, for this reason, that I never could be of any use in any cause in which I could not believe, and I did believe most firmly that to take away the Endowment from a poor Church at a time when there was little enough spent on religion was both unjust and unwise. I thought so; I think so now; and I am convinced that whatever may be the opinion of a certain number of Members of this House, those who are responsible for the Church in Wales, the vast majority of the members of that Church, will think that the course which I have adopted is wiser, in the interests of that Church, than the course which is suggested by my Noble Friend.
  That is my case, and let me say this further. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It is worth paying a big price, if necessary: it is worth, perhaps, the price of being subjected to such charges, if you can get rid of a controversy which has been a source of endless harm, not only in Wales, but in England as well. We are living in, times which must fill every earnest man with anxiety, and everyone knows that preaching is not in my line, but I do say this, that when we find everywhere that the new heaven and the new earth which is being preached at so many street corners and on so many platforms represents a world where there will be no hardships, because nobody will do anything except what he wants, where everything is material, where there is no thought of anything beyond it, I say that when we look at conditions of that kind, any man who does not do what is in his power to break anything that separates the Churches which are preaching the game thing is doing something of which he has no reason to be proud.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope the House will believe me when I say that nothing has been further from my thoughts throughout the whole of this controversy than to say anything—of course, I may, in the heat of debate, have said things, and some of my opponents may have said
  500
  things, which perhaps are now regretted—but I have never intended to say anything; which would embitter the religious controversy in Wales. I agree most fully with. the closhing words of my right hon. Friend that it is of the utmost possible importance-that all should work together—and work together heartily and cordially—and I hope I have never done anything to hinder the consummation of that object. I will endeavour in what I am going to say to avoid saying anything that may be wounding to anybody. My right hon. Friend defended his position, and it seems to me that what it really amounted to was this. He said, in the first place—I am not taking the order of his observations, but the substance of them—that in a Coalition you must have perpetual compromise. Yes, Sir, and that is the principal difficulty of a Coalition. Compromises are right enough in questions of expediency, but when you come to questions of deep principle, then compromises are merely colourless. You have no right to compromise on a question of vital principle. That is wrong, and to do what is wrong is never, in my judgment, what is expedient. That is the real difficulty. My right hon. Friend and I, I am. afraid, approach this question from different points of view. He regards it as a question of ordinary political expediency. He thinks the Welsh Church Act was a grave mistake, unwise, and unjust. But he does not think more—at least, so I understand his speech this evening. Therefore, he says, "When I see an opportunity for settling the controversy by admitting a certain amount of the principle which was contended for on. the other side, I do so, and surely I am wise. I am following the ordinary principles of English public life in settling a controversy. I am making for peace. I am securing an end to religious differences," and all the rest of it. But if you take the view that Disendowment was morally indefensible, what then? Are you still to compromise?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is perfectly true, but the time to raise that question—and we did raise it—was when we agreed to have a Coalition election. It was impossible afterwards.
  Lord R. CECIL: That, of course, is an observation my right hon. Friend is entirely entitled to make. But, so far as I am personally concerned, it evidently does

  501

  not affect me. I must have misunderstood the whole thing then. I resigned—it is on record if anyone cares to go into the history of the thing—because I was not satisfied with the definiteness of the pledge the Prime Minister gave. I have no kind of quarrel with the Prime Minister, of course, but I was not satisfied with the pledge. I certainly never understood, and I do not think it is possible in reading the Prime Minister's letter to my right hon. Friend to understand, that it was a definite repudiation of the possibility of settlement on the lines on which the Unionist party had always stood. I have the passage here from my right hon. Friend's letter, and if it is of any interest to the House I will read it—
  "Finally, there is the question of Welsh Disestablishment. I am certain that nobody wishes to reopen religious controversy at this time. The Welsh Church Act is on the Statute Book, and I do not think that there is any desire, even on the part of the Welsh Church itself, that the Act should be repealed. But I recognise that the long continuance of the War has created financial problems which must be taken into account. I cannot make any definite proposals at the present moment, but I do not believe that once this question of principle no longer arises it will be found impossible to arrive at a solution of these financial difficulties."
  That was a statement that some assistance would be given to the Welsh Church —at least. so I understand it.
  In a reply to that I said:
  "In deals with Disendowment as if it was unobjectionable in itself, but admits that owing to subsequent events a compassionate allowance to the Welsh Church might be made. To me Disendowment is still an act of spoliation, objectionable both as a conversion to worldly uses of funds properly applicable to religious purposes, and as an attack on the security of property."
  I said a promise of some assistance is not enough for me unless you also concede that privilege I understand exactly to be conceded. I certainly never assumed that that meant that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—I am not going to say anything about freedom from pledges, or any. thing of that sort—I quite agree that the less Breach of pledges is thrown about the better—had completely changed the opinion which I understood him to hold up to that time. That is the position which I hold. The next point that my right hon. Friend made —at least, so I understand him —was that he could not have offered other terms to the Welsh Church without another election. I am amazed at that statement. I can scarcely believe
  502
  it. It is, of course, possibly true. I can not myself think that it would have necessitated another General Election if there had been insistence on the rights of the Welsh Church, and as to whether we should take that attitude we always maintained in connection with the Welsh Church Act. The strongest point made by my right hon. Friend was that this Bill was accepted and supported by the Welsh. Church, or those who were entitled to speak for it. I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend read, and the copy of the resolution which the Parliamentary Committee passed. What did it amount to? They said—I am phrasing it, but I think not unfairly—"We do not like this Bill. It does not give us that to which we are entitled. It does not re verse Disendowment, as we think it ought to reverse it, but it does give us some thing. And we are accepting it as such." I do not think they say more than that. Then I should very much like to know exactly what they were told before they accepted the offer. Were they informed of the opinion of the Law Officers? No answer ! I assume they were not. There fore, they went into this—
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the Noble Lord should misunderstand, nor do I wish to be understood. The Law Officers' opinion was only given this morning; but I myself stated to the Bishop of St. Asaph, who represented the Church, what in the view of the Home Secretary—who is a lawyer—the Law Officers' opinion precisely was.
  Lord R. CECIL: I am very much- obliged to my right hon. Friend, but it is evident that- if they were told—and I certainly understand that if they were not told they received a very positive assurance—that unless they agreed to this Bill, in the first place, they would get no Bill at all, and in the second place, they would not get either what are called —I will say exactly what I mean later—lapsed interests—they would not be entitled to treat—
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. They were never told anything of the kind.
  Lord R. CECIL: I am sure they were told—not by the right hon. Gentleman. [Hon. Members: "Name !"] Lastly, I should like to know what they were informed as to the effect of the Tithe Act. That is one of the reasons for objecting to Bills founded on private negotiations,

  503
  because you never know what takes place. Somebody says," This is an agreed Bill, and the House of Commons need not be anxious or nervous, because it has been Accepted by those who understand it; pass the Bill and have done with it." I dislike that method of passing legislation, and it is much fairer and better to everybody concerned that questions of this kind should be threshed out in public, and then we know exactly what takes place. On the merits—and that is the most important part—I want to try and explain what I understand from the Home Secretary's speech to be the effect of this Bill. I am not going into the details.
  There are two parts of this Bill. In the first place there is the declaratory part and the enacting part. In the declaratory part it declares what the Home Secretary and the Law Officers believe is the law already, and the Welsh Church is to be entitled, in reckoning the amount paid for commutation of the existing interests, to take into consideration the interests which did exist at the passing of the Act of 1914. That, the Home Secretary tells us—and it is the best legal advice available to the Government—is the law under the 1914 Act; and no change is made by this Bill. Secondly, it provides that the commutation is to be paid on the tithe rent-charge at 137. That, again, the Home Secretary tells us, was the fair meaning of the Act of 1914; and the (Solicitor-General, who is a Conservative lawyer, and the Attorney-General, who is a Liberal lawyer, agreed in that determination. Therefore, those Clauses of the Act gave nothing to the Church, and that is important to observe.
  They declare what was already the law, and they do no more. What does the Bill do in fact? It gives £ 1,250,000, I understand, one way and another, which, as the Home Secretary very fairly told us specifically, was £ 1,125,000 given to the county councils. I am not going into the question of policy, but I can conceive English and Scottish Members saying to to themselves, "Why should we pay £1,250,000 to relieve Welsh county councils who have made a bad bargain in accepting this spoliation of the Welsh Church?" What else does the Bill do? Apart from small matters, it does one very important thing: it prolongs the life of the Welsh Commissioners. Why is that very important? It is very important because, without prolonging the life
  504
  of the Welsh Commissioners, the whole of the Disendowment Clauses of the Act would be in danger of coming to an end altogether. I would not interfere with Disestablishment, but it would with Disendowment. Under the Welsh Disestablishment Act, the provision for Disendowment is that the property of the Church—I am putting it much more shortly and in different language from that of the Act, but I think I am putting it fairly—the property of the Church is vested in the Welsh Commissioners. Therefore, if the Welsh Commissioners are not there, the property cannot be vested in them, and the whole. of the Disendowment Clauses would fall to the ground. The Welsh Commissioners come to an end at the end of this year, and the time of vesting is the date of Disestablishment. The date of Disestablishment is the end of the War; and the end of the War, as defined by Act of Parliament, means the ratification of the Treaty with the last of our enemies. If, therefore, the ratification of the Treaty with the last of our enemies does not take place before the end of this year, the whole of the Disendowment Clauses come to an end.
  I am not saying that it would be right to leave the position thus, but I want to call the attention of the House to the real effect of this Bill from the point of view of those who regard Disendowment as robbery. It gives no alleviation to the Disendowment provisions at all; they are left exactly as they would have been if this Bill had never been introduced. That is the statement of the Home Secretary. But it does provide that the Disendowment Clauses shall certainly have effect. Therefore this Bill really is to make Disendowment perfectly certain, and it has no other effect at all so far as Disendowment is concerned. I do not want, as I have said, to hurl accusations of bad faith, but I recollect that it was my business to attend night after night and listen to the Debates on the original Bill, and I remember that every one of the leaders of the Unionist party—my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, my hon. Friend who spoke this evening (Sir A. Boscawen), my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Board of Trade, the Solicitor-General—they all made statements, according to my very strong recollection, to the effect that the Bill was not only unwise in policy, but

  505
  that it was robbery, or words to that effect—that it was a gross act of oppression, and was taking property winch the State had no right to touch, and giving it from religions uses to secular uses. It was said over and over again by everybody. I said it and, of course, I said it in the strongest possible language. But I was not alone. I may perhaps be allowed to quote a little. In 1915 the question again arose of prolonging the date of Disestablishment. It was just after the first Coalition Government had been formed, and the question was whether the Government had given us a pledge that they would extend the period of Disestablishment. If that had been done, the Disestablishment Sections would certainly have failed. As a matter of fact, we agreed to let them oft their pledge. There is no doubt about what happened. I was asked to speak on behalf of the Unionist party, and to intimate the assent of that party to that arrangement. I said this—I remember it very well—
  "I am authorised by the leaders of our party, both in this House and in the House of Lords, to say that, in acquiescing in the course proposed, it must be clearly understood that their views on the question of the Welsh Church have undergone no change, and that the pledges that they have given in connection with it are still binding on them. I hope that that will be perfectly understood in the country as well as in this House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1915, col. 1994, Vol. 73.]
  Then I ventured to try to summarise what I, in my innocence, thought was the view of the party to which I belonged and my leaders. I said this:
  "I am not going into the weary controversy again, but what are the great principles involved on each side? Those who desire this change are actuated, they tell us—I am quite ready to believe it—by a desire for religious equality, and a profound and growing belief in the national feeling of Wales. On the other hand, we who are opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment are actuated —I ask them to believe it as fully as I believe their account of their own feeling —by a genuine fear of the secularisation of the State and a passionate belief in the unfairness and impolicy of Disendowment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1915, col. 1995, Vol. 73.]
  Even this year a memorial was presented to my right hon. Friend, signed by the Solicitor-General and by my hon. Friend who has spoken in this Debate, and they said this:
  "The appropriation of these endowments by the State has always been regarded by the Church as an act of spoliation."
  They recalled the speeches of my right hon. Friend, and say,
  506
  "Your memorialists ask that the Welsh, Church should be fully reimbursed for the loss of the endowments,"
  and they go on to ask for the restoration of churchyards, and for the reversal of the policy of driving out the Church in Wales, without its consent, from the Church of England. Can the House wonder, after all that, that we should not feel—I will put it no higher—some surprise that these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should now come down supporting a Bill which is not going to make the Church one penny better off than it would be without the Bill, and which is going to prolong the machinery which is available for Disestablishment? That is really the position. I am not going to argue at length whether we were right or wrong about our objections to Disendowment, but I want to say this: We arc coming to a period when one of the great controversies will be as to the rights of property. I am one of those who believe that if you destroy the belief in private property you are going to undermine one of the foundations on which the State rests. I do not think civilisation can exist unless-you maintain the belief that a man has a right to the property which he owns. What is my right hon. Friend's statement on this question? He says, in clear language, that by every principle on which private property is held the Church is entitled to its endowments. Quite apart from the question of the breach of faith I venture to put to my colleagues in this House that the question is, Is this really a wise measure? Are they really wise to vote to-day in favour of a Bill which endorses the principle of Disendowment? Are they really sure that the endowments of the Church can be distinguished from private property, and did not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use the right term when he said there was no distinction? No one will claim that anyone has a right to property whatever he does with it. The principle underlying the trust is that it must not be used to the detriment of the State, and if it is so used it may be taken away from the person to whom it belongs. No doubt there are compensations to be given. Yes, but you are not giving the Welsh Church fair compensation. You are confiscating this property; you are taking it without giving any compensation in return. On what principle are you going to distinguish that Act from the action recommended by those who are

  507
  enemies of private property? I venture to say you will find it extremely difficult in the coming controversy to make any such difference. If you agree to this you will be reminded that you have voted for the endorsement of the principle in spite of the warning given, but now apparently forgotten by our leaders. That is the view I take. In 1913 and 1914 I said to my leaders that the taking of this property was robbery, and I meant it, and I will not be a party to any endorsement of a principle which I believe to be morally wrong. I am very sorry to differ with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am extremely sorry to give even the slightest feasibility to the charge that I am re-arousing the religious difficulty. But even the bitterness and danger of the religious difficulty is equally as deplorable as the loss of trust in the absolute reliability of the statements of public men. Those of us who think as I do—that what was proposed in 1913–14 was robbery—have no right to come down here for any political consideration, however convenient such a course may be, to urge the House to accept and endorse a policy which we then denounced as we did. I should deeply regret if it was really a question between rearousing the bitterness of this controversy and keeping faith with statements which have been made in public. But I see no reason why that should be so. I cannot see why those who
  wish for religious liberty, those who believe in the nationality of Wales, should not be satisfied to leave the Church to carry on her work. It is not as if it was a very rich Church. It is not as if it was pretended that she has misapplied her funds. No one has denied right through the whole controversy that the Church has honestly, honourably and faithfully discharged her duties to the Welsh people. Yet you are going to take this, property away. I dare say it will not cripple her. I dare say she will recover. Persecution very often does good to a religious body, but that is no defence to the persecutor. I dare say she will not even be injured, but you are going to take the property away without a shadow of justification, without being able to say to yourselves, to your consciences, or to anyone, that the Church has misused her position and is no longer entitled to her property. You are going to take it away not because you believe it is right, not because you think it is a necessary sacrifice to justice, but merely in order to facilitate the operations of a Coalition Cabinet. That is a course of action which anyone who endorses it will profoundly regret in time to come, which will lower the opinion of the public of this House and of Ministers, and which will not produce any compensating advantage, and one to which I will not be a party.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 37.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [10.57 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Carr, W. T.

  Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

  Amery, Lieut.-Col. L. C. M. S.

  Carter, W. (Mansfield)

  Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Casey, T. W.

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Atkey, A. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Clough, R.

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

  Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

  Barnett, Captain Richard W.

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Gregory, Holman

  Barrand, A. R.

  Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.

  Gretton, Col. John

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Griggs, Sir Peter

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Bennett, T. J.

  Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)

  Hailwood, A.

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)

  Blades, Sir George R.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Henderson. Major V. L.

  Blair, Major Reginald

  Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

  Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

  Hinds, John

  Beyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Edwards, J. H. (Glam, Neath)

  Hood, Joseph

  Bruton, Sir J.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander

  Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

  Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Cape, Tom

  Foxcroft, Captain C.

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Jameson, Major J. G.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Spencer, George A.

  Jesson, C.

  Parry, Major Thomas Henry

  Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Johnson, L. S.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Suphenson, Colonel H. K.

  Johnstone, J.

  Perring, William George

  Stewart, Gorshom

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Sugden, W. H.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Pownall, Lieut-Colonel AssJistoo

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Pratt, John William

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Purchase, H. G.

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Knights, Captain H.

  Raeburn, Sir William

  Townley, Maximilan G.

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

  Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Lorden, John William

  Raw, Sir J. D.

  Waddington, R.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Reid, D. D.

  Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

  Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lanes.)

  Randall, Atheistan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Lunn, William

  Renwick, G.

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

  Weston, Colonel John W.

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.I

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  Manville, Edward

  Rodger, A. K.

  Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)

  Matthews, David

  Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Mond, Rt Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Seager, Sir William

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Morris, Richard

  Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

  Shaw, Hon. A. (Kllmarnock)

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Younger, Sir George

  Murray, William (Dumfries)

  Short, A. (Wednesbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

  Neal, Arthur

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W)

  Taibst and Captain F. Guest.

  Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

  Sitch, C. H.

  Parker, James

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Capt. C.

  Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

  Remer, J. B.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

  Remnant, Col. Sir J.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Kidd, James

  Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Bettorton, H. B.

  Lioyd, George Butler

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Maddocks, Henry

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

  Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchln)

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Lt.-Col.

  Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill

  Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

  Sir S. Hoare and Major Ormsby- Gore.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Oman, C. W. C.

  Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir L. Worthington-Evans.]

  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]

  WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Sir Laming Worthington-Evans.]
  Mr. G. THORNE: May I take it that there is no intention of carrying the Bill beyond this stage to-night?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): That cannot be done without a Financial Resolution.

  WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) [MONEY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the sum of £1,000,000 to the Welsh Commissioners under any Act of the present Session to continue in office the Welsh Commissioners appointed under the Welsh Church Act, 1914, to postpone the date of Disestablishment, and to make further provision with respect to the temporalities of and marriages in the Church in Wales—(King's Recommendation signified)—Tomorrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]

  WAR PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to the members of pensions appeal tribunals constituted under any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the administration of the enactments relating to Naval, Military, and Air Force, War Pensions, Grants, and Allowances, and of any expenses which may be incurred by a
  512
  tribunal under such Act—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Sir L. Worthington-E'vans.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (RESEARCH).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (RESEARCH).
  PENSIONS (BONUS).
  PENSIONS (BONUS).
  CUSTOMS EXTRA-MEN (PEACE HOLIDAY).
  CUSTOMS EXTRA-MEN (PEACE HOLIDAY).
  ROAD BOARD (GRANTS).
  ROAD BOARD (GRANTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  APPLES.
  APPLES.
  TRANSPORT DELAYS.
  TRANSPORT DELAYS.
  DRIED FRUITS.
  DRIED FRUITS.
  JAM.
  JAM.
  INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.
  INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.
  STORE CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  STORE CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  GENERALS WIVES (ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE).
  GENERALS WIVES (ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  MEN DETAINED IN INDIA.
  MEN DETAINED IN INDIA.
  NORTH RUSSIA (HOSPITAL SHIPS).
  NORTH RUSSIA (HOSPITAL SHIPS).
  1/9TH HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
  1/9TH HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY AND STATUS).
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY AND STATUS).
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  VENEREAL DISEASE.
  ARMY LEAVE (AGRICULTURISTS).
  ARMY LEAVE (AGRICULTURISTS).
  723RD LABOUR CORPS, FRANCE.
  723RD LABOUR CORPS, FRANCE.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CONSTRUCTION (TRANSFERENCE).
  CONSTRUCTION (TRANSFERENCE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  WAR GRATUITY.
  DISABLED OFFICER (LIEUTENANT BENSON).
  DISABLED OFFICER (LIEUTENANT BENSON).
  ROYAL ENGINEBBS (E. C. STONE).
  ROYAL ENGINEBBS (E. C. STONE).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  TANNED KIPS (IMPORTATION).
  TANNED KIPS (IMPORTATION).
  VICTORY RIBBON.
  VICTORY RIBBON.
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION").
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION").
  UNIVERSITIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  UNIVERSITIES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
INDIA.
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS).
  RUPEE (RATE OF EXCHANGE).
  RUPEE (RATE OF EXCHANGE).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  MORMON PROPAGANDA.
  MORMON PROPAGANDA.
HOUSING.
  ORDERS TO QUIT.
  ORDERS TO QUIT.
  WREXHAM SCHEME.
  WREXHAM SCHEME.
  INSPECTORS (APPOINTMENTS).
  INSPECTORS (APPOINTMENTS).
  UNOCCUPIED HOUSES.
  UNOCCUPIED HOUSES.
  SANATORIA (FOOD).
  SANATORIA (FOOD).
  LONDON RATES.
  LONDON RATES.
  KENSINGTON STREETS (CLEANSING).
  KENSINGTON STREETS (CLEANSING).
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
COAL SUPPLIES.
  HULL, DOCKS.
  HULL, DOCKS.
  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
  BEITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORA- TION.
  BEITISH DYESTUFFS CORPORA- TION.
  ENEMY-OWNED BUSINESSES (TRADE MARKS).
  ENEMY-OWNED BUSINESSES (TRADE MARKS).
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE COMPANY (MEN OVER FORTY).
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE COMPANY (MEN OVER FORTY).
POST OFFICE.
  SUB-OFFICES (WAGES).
  SUB-OFFICES (WAGES).
  WORKING CONDITIONS (CAEDIFF).
  WORKING CONDITIONS (CAEDIFF).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM.
Baron Burnham, having been created Viscount BURNHAM of Hall Barn in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a; Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3awith the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting; and, further, That the consideration of the King's Message and the two Motions for recording the thanks of this House to the Imperial Forces and to Field-Marshal Foch have precedence of the Orders of the Day.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleaton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THANKS TO THE FORCES.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to move—
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Petty Officers, Warrant Officers and men of the Navy and of the Royal Marines for their sleepless watch over the seas and for the courage, resource and devotion with which, during four years of constant peril, they have maintained the blockade
464
of the enemy's coast, convoyed armies drawn from the most distant lands, and defended the commerce of the civilised world against the craft and subtlety of a lawless foe.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Warrant Officers and men of the. Armies in the Field for the matchless valour and endurance with which, amid circumstances of unexampled hardship, they have sustained the shock of war in many climes, for the good humour, clemency and patience of their bearing, and for the undaunted spirit which has carried them through four years of strenuous toil to a complete and splendid victory.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and men of the Air Force for their brilliant daring and conspicuous services over sea and land.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the gallant troops from the Dominions Overseas, from India, and from the Colonies and Protectorates for the promptitude with which they responded to the call of justice and freedom and for the noble part that they have played in conjunction with their comrades of the British Isles in securing the triumph of right over wrong.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to those subjects of His Majesty, who, inspired by the greatness of the issue, voyaged from foreign lands, to offer their lives in the service of their country.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and of the Indian Medical Service, for the skilful discharge of their humane office, and for the unprecedented success which attended their unremitting labours to preserve the armed forces of the Crown from the ravages of disease.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the women of the Medical and other Auxiliary Services for their devotion in tending the sick and wounded and for ether duties faithfully and bravely discharged.
That the thanks of this House be accorded to the Officers and men of the Mercantile Marine for the fine and fearless seamanship by which our People have been preserved from want and our Cause from disaster.
That this House doth acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of their Country and tenders its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride.
The noble Earl said: I ask the indulgence of your Lordships if, owing to an indisposition from which I have barely recovered, I am unequal to-day to the task of doing justice to the great theme which has been placed in my hands. The Motion that I have the honour to move is one conveying the thanks of this House of Parliament to the brave men in every branch of the Forces to whose valour, fortitude, and devotion we owe it that we have won the greatest victory that has ever been recorded in the annals of the British nation. The records of Parliament show that it has been for long past, I think for centuries past, the custom of both Houses of Parliament, in the concluding stages of a great national struggle, to offer a vote of congratulation and of thanks to those brave men who have upheld the honour, maintained the welfare, and added to the glory of the nation. This is, as I say, a time-honoured, but it is also, in my opinion, a praiseworthy practice. For, although we are essentially a peace-loving people, and although assuredly we did nothing, either by policy or by action, to provoke this particular war, yet when the lists are arrayed it is upon the valour of our soldiers and sailors, upon the skill of the Generals and Admirals who lead them, far more than upon any diplomacy of Statesmen, that we rely. Hence it is that upon these occasions the thanks of Parliament are given exclusively to those who have risked so much, who have in the majority of cases risked and in many cases laid down their lives, and to whose courage and genius we owe it that the victory which we celebrate has been won.
No one would wish to have it otherwise. If we are wrong in hoping that this will be the end of all great wars, and if another war should—let us hope not in our lifetime—break out in Europe, I doubt not that the same custom will be followed in your
466
Lordships' House at its close. If, on the other hand, we succeed in abolishing war and no such occasion arises, then it may be that the time will come for the statesman, and a day may arise when a vote of thanks will be moved in this House, not to members of His Majesty's Government—that is a privilege which we seldom enjoy—but to the members of the League of Nations, who by their action may possibly have prevented the recurrence of such a catastrophe. Further, I venture to think that this form of tribute—the thanks of Parliament; which, after all, represents the organised sentiment of the nation—is more valued by its recipients than the loudest acclamations that they may get from the populace or the highest honours which it is in the power of Governments or of the Crown to bestow. I believe that the recipients of this compliment would sooner have it than the grants of money which are about to be conferred upon them, or than the coronets which in some cases are about to adorn their brows. As to the moment at which I make this Motion, it is true that peace has not been concluded with all our enemies, but the principal enemy, the most formidable of our antagonists, has been humbled and broken, and it was, I think, with a true instinct that as soon as the German signatures were placed upon the Treaty of Versailles the country—and not this country alone, but Europe—realised that the war was over and that the victory had been won.
This Resolution specifies all the Forces of the Crown, to whom we ask you to-day to express your thanks. In succeeding paragraphs you will find mentioned the Navy and the Royal Marines; the Armies in the Field; the Air Force; the troops from the Dominions overseas, from India and from the Colonies and Protectorates—those subjects of His Majesty who have come over to fight from foreign lands; the members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Indian Medical Service, the women of the Medical and other Auxiliary services, and the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine. But while I have briefly enumerated this list of those whom we desire to honour, I think that I shall be dispensed this afternoon from recording with any minuteness the individual services or exploits of these Forces. I think so for two reasons. Firstly, because they are already so well known that were I to recapitulate them this afternoon I should be merely re-telling an oft-told tale; and

467
secondly, because in October, 1917, at the beginning of the fourth year of the war; I proposed at this Table an interim vote of thanks to all those branches of the Services, and I dwelt at some length on that occasion on the records of each of those branches. The year that elapsed between that date and the conclusion of the Armistice in November, 1918, did but consummate their triumph; it could add nothing to their glory. It was a year more dramatic than any that had preceded it in the war. It was, perhaps, the most dramatic twelve months that have ever passed in the history of the world. It opened, as your Lordships will remember, with reverses that seemed almost to threaten the possible victory of our cause, but it ended with a victory so complete that there is nothing comparable to it in history. It was a victory that has altered the entire course of the history of the world, that has reconstructed the map of the world, and that has left. us with a future differing in all essentials—I hope it may differ in the beneficial results that ensue from it—from any victory by which it has been preceded.
It is surely not an unhappy coincidence that I should be making this Motion to-day, almost on the exact anniversary of the day five years ago on which we entered the war. None of us will forget that day. We recall the intense excitement, the pent-up emotion, the patriotic exaltation of the people. I can hear and see now, in memory, the crowds that surged past my window in the evening proceeding along the streets to acclaim the Sovereign in his palace. They went there to cheer him as the symbol and embodiment of the ideals and the aspirations of the people. That, if I may say so, was no feverish or artificial or ephemeral outburst; it was an expression of the profound conviction of our people. The whole country realised almost in a flash that this was a just, a necessary, an inevitable, and a righteous war—a war from which we could not have abstained except at the price of national dishonour. There were few of the people in the streets that day I expect, and I dare say there were few of us, who realised what lay before us—the long and agonising ordeal to be endured, the dark valleys of anguish and suffering through which our people must plod and stumble for more than four years before they could scale the peaks of hope or see the dawn of victory flood the hills. But such was the spirit of our people, so imbued were they with the
468
importance of the issue, such was their confidence in the indomitable heroism of our troops, that, had the curtain been lifted that day and had our eyes been able to, penetrate the dark and sombre gulfs that lay before us, I believe that no class and no individual in any class, would have faltered; that no parent would have refused to send forth his son to the ordeal, and that no man, upon whose brow was written in unseen characters the death sentence that was about to await him, would have shrunk or trembled at the impending decree of fate. Now five years have past. We see the same crowds—or, rather, they are not the same crowds; there are many gaps in their ranks—but we see the crowds parading the streets, we see them again massing in front of the palace and acclaiming the Sovereign, and we are met this afternoon to add our crown of tribute to that which has been already offered by the nation.
The character and value of the services which we commemorate to-day may, I think, best be measured by a contemplation of the nature of the struggle through which we have passed. It is a commonplace to say that this has been no ordinary war. It is not a war upon which oblivion will presently lay its chilly hand and which will speedily pass into the limbo of the forgotten, to be explored only by the military student or to be annotated by the historian of the future. It is a war that has been waged for four years with unparalleled intensity, without a respite, without any intervals of repose, without any of those retreats into winter quarters which we used to read of in histories of the Peninsular and other campaigns more than a century ago. It is a war which has been waged not in a single theatre or in a single continent; it has been waged in every continent on the surface of the globe except that of America, and, unable to fight in their own continent, the Americans had to come over to conduct the struggle in ours. It has been fought upon every sea. One of the most memorable incidents in the early stages of the war occurred in the seas that surround the Australian continent. Two of the most famous engagements—that of Coronel and the Falkland Islands—were fought in the waters that lie on either side of the Horn. It has not been a war as many have been—of two countries or of two peoples; it has been a war in which scores of countries and countless peoples have been engaged.
I imagine, my Lords, that a larger number of men have been under arms in this war than in all the accumulated wars of the past, century, and I dare say much longer. I hesitate to estimate the number of men who, directly or indirectly, have been engaged in fighting this war, but perhaps we may form some dim estimate of it if I say, as I believe to be true, that in the course of it something like 20,000,000 human beings in different parts of the world have laid down their lives. Again, this war has been famous for the revolutions which it has introduced into the science and practice of warfare, for the development that we have seen in the arts both of assault and of defence, in the new principles of strategy and tactics that have been evolved, in the devilish instruments and agencies of war that have been created, in the fearful devastation which has been wrought, and in the inconceivable destruction which the armies have left behind them. It is the first great war that has been fought both in the air and under the seas. I cannot help thinking that when history records its impartial verdict these scenes it will also say that it was war notable for the calculated and inconceivable savagery of one of the combatants, who had not even the excuse of the medieval barbarian for his crimes, because he claimed himself to be the finest creature of providence, the finished product of culture and civilisation, and the predestined master of the world.
All these aspects of the war which I have briefly touched upon seem to me to throw into startling relief, and to invest with an exceptional lustre, the services of those who fought and won it. If passing from that field of obervation we look at the war for a moment in the way in which it has affected ourselves in this country, I think we may claim that it has been equally unprecedented and equally remarkable. It is the first war in our history that has been waged, not by a professional class of soldiers appointed and paid for the purpose, but by the whole nation. There is not a class or community, or section of a class or community, there is not a trade or occupation in the country that has not been involved—men and women, even boys running away from our Universities, falsifying their ages in order to escape from our public schools in order that they might not be missing when the great trial came—all have been imbued with the same ardour and all were equally
470
convinced of the righteousness of our cause.
There is one other sharp distinction between this war and previous wars, some of them within our own recollection. On some of those occasions there have been sharp differences of opinion at home among ourselves as to the policy or as to the conduct of the war. Such was the case to some extent with certain phases of the Napoleonic Wars. It was more the case with regard to the Crimean War, and still more, again, with regard to the South African War—in the recollection of so ninny of us who now have seats in this House. In the case of those wars, my Lords, to a greater or less degree, at certain times and dates the nation was divided, grave dissensions occurred, party spirit was aroused, and charges were hurled to and fro from one side to the other of the House of Commons. But here there has been no discordant note. The country has been unanimous. The feeble twitterings of the pacifists have been drowned in the great chorus of national approval, and although we have been told by a famous man that this country hates Coalitions—and I am not certain that sometimes it is not true—yet the measure of the national agreement has been typified by the fact that for four years and a quarter you have had a Government administering the country which is composed of representatives of all parties in the State.
There is another test that I would apply. I suggest that really the best evidence of the general concord of which I speak has been the readiness with which, after the first year and a half of war, compulsory service was accepted in this country. It was not because the people had abjured the voluntary system. We all of us see how eagerly they are endeavouring to get back to it. It was not because they liked compulsory military service for its own sake, but it was because they recognised and accepted it as an overwhelming necessity in this case. I believe myself that the country was converted and convinced in this respect before Parliament. There were some of us who from the start pleaded for the introduction of compulsory service, not merely as a sound principle, not even merely as a national duty, but as a military necessity without which a war on this scale could not be fought or won. When, however, the plunge was taken, I ask you to recall how

471
admirable was the spirit in which it was accepted by the nation as a whole. None of those gloomy forebodings to which we listened from the prophets of evil was found to be true; none of those invidious distinctions were drawn between the voluntary soldier and the soldier who came in under the Military Service Acts. Both were inspired by the same devotion and sense of duty, and now that the war is over both classes can look back with equal pride and without any distinction upon the part which they played in the struggle.
There is one feature, too frequently, I think, ignored, which I would like to mention in estimating the services of the men whom we are here to-day to honour. Every British soldier and airman who has been fighting in this war, with the exception of those brave heroes of the air who were defending us from aerial attack in this country, has been fighting throughout on a foreign soil. There has been wanting to him the stimulus of the knowledge that the frontiers of his country had been violated; that the territories of his people had been over-run; that his home had been broken up; that his family had been taken off into slavery, even if it had not suffered a worse fate. Such has not been the case of our Allies. In Belgium the brave Belgian people, fighting in the little corner of their country that was left to them, could see daily before their eyes the smoking débris of the territories from which they had been evicted; France could see, within a few miles of her front, the ruins of her fairest fields and her richest factories; the Italians, looking forth, could see the enemy from the towers of Venice. Our soldiers had no such incentive. They were fighting throughout in foreign lands, amid a foreign people speaking a different tongue from their own. Now, it was the trenches of France and Flanders; anon, it was the murderous slopes of Gallipoli; yet again, it was the hills of Palestine, or, it might be, the banks of the Tigris. But in all those distant places, in every variety of climate, exposed to every sort of privation, our men fought with as much ardour as though they were fighting on, behind, and for the shores of Great Britain. I have sometimes wondered in my own mind, though I have hardly dared to confess the sentiment, whether the gallant troops of our Allies would have fought with equal spirit, so cheerfully and for so long a time as they did had they been engaged in the High-
472
lands of Scotland or on the marches of the Welsh border.
The first of these paragraphs relates to the services of the Navy, and if I turn to that subject it is, I am sure, unnecessary for me to recall in any detail the great deeds or surpassing services which have been rendered in this war by the Navy, including the mercantile marine. If the statement might challenge criticism—though I have heard it made—that it was the British Navy which won the war, certainly no one would dispute the proposition that without the British Navy it could not possibly have been won: I do not propose to recall this afternoon the exploits on the sea of the past four years—Beatty's famous dash into the Heligoland Bight, his frustrated victory on the Dogger Bank, Jellicoe's and Beatty's great naval battle of Jutland, de Robeck's landing in the Dardanelles, the heroic disaster of Coronel, the swift retribution of the Falkland Islands, the glorious and immortal exploits of Zeebrugge and Ostend. The heroes of these combats are mentioned in the Message which will shortly come before us from His Majesty the King. One of them, Lord Jellicoe, has already a seat in your Lordships' House; the other, Sir David Beatty, will shortly follow him.
I prefer for the moment, in the few remarks that I devote to the subject, to look at the services of the Navy, not from the individual but from the widest point of view. There has never been so supreme a manifestation of what is meant by sea power in the history of the world. There have never been results so tremendous that flowed from the command of the sea. I ask you for a moment to reflect what the command of the seas has meant to us and our Allies. From the beginning of the war the merchant fleet of these world-conquerors was doomed either to capture or to internment in a neutral port, or to lie helplessly and uselessly in its own harbours. With one exception, the fighting Navy of Germany feared to meet in action the British Flea, and that experiment was never repeated. Not a single transport containing German troops ever crossed the sea. Not a single German soldier landed on our coast, except as a prisoner; and perhaps we had too many in that category. Not a single German warship came in sight of our shores except to fire a few shells upon unoffending and, as a rule, sleeping seaside towns, and only came

473
in order to scuttle away the moment there was a chance either of engagement or of pursuit. Germany had to look on in helpless impotence while the whole of her colonial empire was wrested from her. Not a regiment, not a squadron, not a platoon, not a gun could be moved from Germany to rescue any one of these possessions upon which hundreds of millions of pounds had been spent. A degree of immunity unparalleled in the history of naval warfare against hostile vessels navigating the surface of the ocean was given to the merchantmen of our Allies, and, if the submarine menace could not be wholly guarded against, it was one which, as time went on, we had learned to master and which we managed to defeat.
Your Lordships may expect me to allude, in passing, to the fact—which I will not develop only because it is so notorious—that during the five years of war it was the British Fleet, that transported the armies of Britain and of the Allies to every theatre of war, carrying no fewer than 20,000,000 of men to and fro, with a loss from enemy action of only 4.400 out of that number, carrying in the same period 2.000,000 horses and mules, and conveying not less than 50.000,000 tons of food and other materials in British ships to British shores.
But there are three less advertised services of the Navy to which I would like to devote a sentence. The first is the ceaseless watch which was kept by the. British Fleet over those 140,000 square miles of the Northern Sea, a watch pursued by day and night, in fair weather and in foul, in fog and mist, for over four and a-half years. The patrol boats and destroyers and mine-sweepers with which we conducted that operation were only twelve in number in 1914; when the Armistice was concluded there were 3,700 engaged in that task. I ask your assent when I say that this was one of the greatest and most sustained and most heroic feats of endurance in the history of naval warfare. The second service was the sentinel watch kept by the Grand Fleet in Scapa Flow, a post of incessant and almost incalculable danger. Had the German Fleet possessed a Jellicoe or a Beatty it is scarcely conceivable that they would not have attacked that most vulnerable position by night. That, I believe, is the opinion of Lord. Jellicoe himself. All honour to the brave men who held that post, and who, when they sallied
474
forth to fight, only did not carry their fight to complete victory because the enemy would not allow them to finish it. The third feature to which I allude was the development of the system of convoys, by which entire fleets of merchantmen were escorted over thousands of miles of ocean, guarded against the perils that lurked below the sea, and without which the American Expeditionary. Force could not possibly have reached the shores of France.
Such have been, in brief, the exploits of the British Navy. It is an incomparable record. It includes, of course, the services of the mercantile marine which has been frequently acknowledged in this House, and to which the citizens of London paid their great tribute in the procession which we witnessed from these windows two days ago. As regards the mercantile marine, I cannot sum up their services better than in this single sentence—that not once in the war did a crew or any individual member of a crew that had once been torpedoed refuse to join another vessel and continue to fight when the chance came of doing so. That gives you some idea of the spirit and daring with which that body discharged their account.
The next paragraph in the Resolution is devoted to the deeds of the Army in the field. It seems almost laughable to attempt to do justice to the feats of the Army in a paragraph. It would be impossible to comprise them within time limits of a few sentences in a speech. I have no time this afternoon to tell the story of battles which will be immortal to all time. I cannot talk to-day about Mons, about Ypres, about the Marne and the Somme, about the slopes of Achi Baba, or about the beleaguered garrison of Kut. I cannot recall to-day the wonderful feats of Lord French and Sir Douglas Haig and the other Commanders. I cannot take you to Palestine or give you a bird's-eye view of what I believe, on the whole, was the most artistically conceived and executed little campaign that has ever been waged. Still less can I repeat the countless tales of bravery everywhere that seem to have transcended human experience and human powers. The records of the Victory Cross, many hundreds of which have been pinned on the bosoms of those who won them, tell the tale.
But there is one feature of the British Army in fighting to which I must allude and that is the chivalry, the humanity,

475
and the high bearing in every field of battle of the British soldier. The paragraph of the Resolution which refers thereto speaks of the good-humour, the clemency, and the patience of their bearing. I think those words, if anything, fall short of the reality. In face of the awful provocation which they experienced, with every incentive to inflict a speedy and bloody retribution on the enemy, the British soldier and sailor—what I say applies equally to both—rarely lost his temper, and never lost his head. They exhibited an example of self-restraint, moderation, and mercy in face of the brutal and pitiless conduct of the enemy which has never been equalled, and which has cast an imperishable lustre not merely on the. British Army and Navy but on the British name.
In this war over 5,000,000 men were recruited from the British Isles; the largest proportion of them from England. Of those, 720,000 have laid down their lives and nearly 3,000,000 bore, at one time or another, upon their body the glorious evidence of honourable wounds. And let us remember this—that just as the old Expeditionary Force of 100,000 men which left our shores in the first week of August, 1914, was, I believe, the finest force that ever left these shores, so we are told, on the indisputable evidence of all military critics, that the Army, approximating to 4,000,000 men, which remained at the conclusion of the Armistice was by far the most efficient fighting force this country, or any country, has ever beheld.
Six of the Generals who were engaged in winning this great struggle are about to join, by the favour of the Sovereign, Your Lordships' House. You will welcome them here. One, outside the six—Viscount French—is already here. His was the Army of the "Old Contemptibles"; his was the glory of the Marne and of Ypres; his the splendour that can never fade. Soon we shall have another place on these Benches occupied by his successor, Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, a model, if I may say so, of what a British Commander should be—a man devoted to his profession, never thinking of himself, with a mind open to the broadest conceptions as well as to the narrowest details of war; always equable, courteous, resolute, and calm. No Commander ever so well typified the qualities of the soldiers he led, and no Commander in this war could have worked so loyally with the
476
great Field-Marshal who was placed above him.
There is one paragraph of this Motion which relates to the services of the Dominions, of India, and the Crown Colonies. It is not for the first time in recent history that they have come to our aid. The Indian Army for half a century at least has been fighting our battles in almost every portion of the Asiatic and African Continents. We recall how the Forces of Canada. New Zealand, and Australia came to our aid in South Africa and on the Nile. But never before have we seen these countries converted, as they have been through this war, into great armed camps, enforcing in some cases compulsory service on their people, treating the struggle as though it was—which, of course, in the last resort it was—a struggle which affected their own existence and their own homes; crossing thousands of miles of sea, feeding the Forces in Europe with recruits month after month and year after year, accepting for years separation from their homes and families, performing prodigies of valour in action, and leaving thousands of men to sleep in foreign graves. The deeds which the Dominion troops wrought in France, in Gallipoli, and many other places which I could mention, are already a national epic which will be enshrined in the glories of our race. The 460,000 who came from Canada the 400,000 who came from Australia, the 112,000 from New Zealand, and the 76,000 from South Africa, meant much more than the numeral strength of the million which these figures when added together compose. They were a moral asset which it was impossible to estimate or over-estimate, and which left an indelible impression on the conscience of the world. I may say the same of India. When we remember that India during this war has raised 1,300,000 native troops, of whom nearly 1,000,000 crossed the seas, it cannot be said that she did not prove her loyalty or play her part. The Indian troops, as we remember, arrived in France almost in the nick of time. They bore the brunt of fighting, in a trying climate, at a critical occasion. Without them some of our greatest victories would not have been won, and the incidents of which we were witness in the streets of London a few days ago are a sufficient evidence that this country knows and appreciates that fact.
Neither, my Lords, might we to forget the services of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. They came from East and West Africa, from the West Indies and the Straits Settlements, from the Pacific Islands to Cyprus, and from Bermuda to Wai-Hei-Wai, and where they could not find troops for fighting they found carriers and labour battalions to go to the front; while the white colonists, where they could, sent contingents and where they could not, sent sums of money, raised loans or defrayed the cost of local services. Not inferior services were rendered by those mentioned in one of the paragraphs of the Motion—namely, the men who from all quarters of the world, subjects of the King living in foreign countries, remembered the call of blood and voyaged here in great numbers voluntarily to offer themselves and their lives in the service of their country.
Among those whom this House, upon the gracious initiative of the Sovereign, will I, asked to honour with a money grant, is General Trenchard. That officer is an embodiment of the fighting force and spirit of that glorious force which he led at different times at home and in the field. In his person the entire force is honoured. When we recall the tiny flotilla which flew across the Channel in the first week of August, 1914, and when we remember that at that time the two forces into which it was then divided—the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service—numbered only between them 1,000 officers and men, and not much more than 100 machines, and when we compare these exiguous totals with the vast fleet of aircraft of every description which we now possess, with the enormous Army, numbering tens of thousands of men, who now make, man, and fly them, we realise something of the great advance which has been made and of the individual part which has been played by airmen in this war. The history of the aerial combats in these years of fighting has been a series of epics, each one of which might demand a Homer. An Iliad would be only too short to do justice to their principal features. But whether we think of the amazing development of the machines, the resourcefulness of the airmen, the incredible bravery and audacity of their flights in the skies, or the toll of human life exacted, I venture to say that there is not a more admirable page not merely in the history of the war but in the records of the British race.
There are other paragraphs of the Motion to which I can do no more than allude in passing. The services of the doctors and surgeons and female nurses are alluded to. Amid the horrors of war those persons of both sexes presented a picture of the highest ideals of peace. On the battlefield, behind the lines, at the clearing stations, in the hospitals, amid shot and shell, face to face with human agony in all its phases, living constantly in the ante-chambers of death, they pursued their merciful and blessed tasks. The procession which escorted a few weeks ago through the streets of London, to Westminster Abbey, the exhumed body of a single woman—a woman not differing from scores of others, a woman unknown to fame till in one single hour she attained immortality, was an epitome of the services which countless others of her sex have rendered, and which have placed a new crown on the brow of woman.
The concluding paragraph of this Motion asks the House to acknowledge with deep submission and reverence the heroism of those who have fallen in the service of the country and to tender its sympathy to their relatives in the hour of their sorrow and their pride. I have often in this House before spoken of these losses. They are very visible here. Fifteen members, I believe, of your Lordships' House went out never to return. There have died in the war 160 sons of Peers, in many cases the hopes and heirs of their line. These losses, my Lords, are typical of those endured by every class of the community. There is not one amongst us, in all probability, sitting here to-day who has not lost relatives of his own. Some families have been almost wiped out. We read of fathers and mothers giving two, three, and four sons to the war, and there is not a village, scarcely a hamlet, in this country which does not mourn those they have lost. The simple wooden crosses mark their graves in distant lands, and everywhere you see sculptured memorials and tablets being set up to keep their memory green at home.
We can offer here no consolation to the bereaved. The thanks of this House—of both Houses of Parliament—are not heard in the grave, and they can give but little comfort to the living. But, my Lords, in their hearts those who have lost must be conscious of a great exultation. Any one of us in whose family was one who died at Waterloo, and who sees in the church where he worships, either on the walls or on a

479
tombstone in the churchyard, the record of that sacrifice, thrills even to this day with honourable pride at the recollection. It becomes a family treasure and an immortal possession. So will it be with those who have lost their dear ones in this struggle. The record of their sacrifices and the memory of their daring will gild the family annals for centuries to come, and later generations, as they see the memorial, will say of him who fell in this war, "He died on the field of honour; he lives for ever in the fields of fame."

THANKS TO THE FORCES.

  TRIBUTE TO MARSHAL FOCH.
  My Lords, there is a second Motion which stands in my name about which I do not propose to make a second speech, because it would be more apposite to include the few remarks which I have to make about it in this speech. That Motion runs—
  That this House accords its profound sense of admiration and gratitude for the supreme services rendered to the British Nation by Field-Marshal Foch, Marshal of France, as Generalissimo of the Allied Armies, in which great position he displayed a military genius worthy of the foremost Captains in history.
  This, my Lords, is a novel, and so far as I know an unprecedented but a very fitting, addition to the tribute we are paying to-day. It will be impertinent for me here, a mere civilian, to eulogise the merits or services of this great soldier. Those who know him best and have worked with him in the war will tell you that clear-minded, far-sighted in conception, swift in decision, and alert in action, Marshal Foch is one of the great captains of history. Character and intellect seem to be blended in him in most harmonious proportion. No one ever heard Marshal Foch say a superfluous word, rarely has he been convicted of taking a rash or ill-considered step. At the critical moment he stepped into the breach. When he was appointed Generalissimo he was not found wanting. And, my Lords—may we not regard this with a special pleasure—Marshal Foch was one who always believed in the British Army. He showed it in the first battle of Ypres, and when he became Allied Commander in the spring of 1918 he gave to Field-Marshal Haig his constant and invaluable support. Finally, my Lords, when the moment came for taking the offensive, well did he choose the moment of assault, and skilfully did he co-ordinate
  480
  the successive attacks of the Allied Forces. "A great Commander and a gallant gentleman" will be, I suggest, the verdict of history upon the latest addition to the Field-Marshals of Great Britain.
  In offering this tribute to Field-Marshal Foch, I like to think that we are tendering it not merely to him as an individual but to all the Allies whom he commanded. Do not let us ever forget, in our own jubilations, that throughout this war we fought alongside great and noble nations whose sacrifices and sufferings have been, in some cases, much greater than our own. With them we have bled, and with them we now triumph. The gallantry of Belgium, the unflinching and invincible ardour of France, the indomitable spirit of Italy, the heroic endurance of Serbia, Greece, and our smaller Allies—all these were component factors in the victory. And in thanking our own heroes. I ask you to bear in mind that we also eulogise them. We are all proud to have lived to see this day; and in inscribing this Resolution, as I hope your Lordships will now do nemine contradicente, on the Records of this House, we shall be associating ourselves, in a spirit of the most profound and admiring gratitude, with some of the greatest achievements that have been written in the records not only of the British Empire but of the human race. I beg to move.
  THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl was surely right in regarding this Motion as the final and conclusive expression of the nation's gratitude towards those who have in many different capacities served the Crown in this war. Those who have served have already shared with us the thanksgiving to Almighty God for the victory which they were enabled to win. They have enjoyed the approval of the Sovereign, they have been acclaimed by millions of their fellow-citizens as they marched through our streets, and they have received the historical tributes of our great civic corporations. And now, following, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the custom of centuries past, both Houses join in this formal Motion of Thanks—formal, but expressing the deepest feeling of all our hearts. It is indeed an old and worthy custom. Blake, Rodney, and Nelson, Marlborough, Wellington, and Cohn Campbell, all in turn received the thanks of Parliament as men who helped to create or to save the British Empire. But this occasion differs from all others in this, that

  481
  behind the Regular Service, of whom we first think, even behind the ordinary reserves and auxiliaries of the Fleet and the Army, there came out that vast host of men and women, ranged behind the Regular Forces, who exchanged their quiet civilian existence for hard and dangerous service both by sea and. land.
  I will not presume to reiterate any of the tributes paid by the noble Earl in the course of his eloquent speech, either to the great naval and military leaders individually, or collectively to the ninny branches of the Public Service enumerated in the course of the Motion. There is one comparatively small omission from that list which I would venture to correct. Nothing is said of the special and gallant service rendered in many parts of the world by the ministers of religion belonging to many different Churches, who ministered to the spiritual needs of the Army and of the Navy, and who in most cases risked and in ninny cases sacrificed their lives for the common cause. The country is of one mind in desiring that the honours conferred by the Crown and the rewards voted by the representatives of the people should be awarded with no grudging or careful hand. But to those who receive them, and to the whole of the Services, behind and above all these things is the knowledge which they possess that they have done their duty, and that in doing it they have earned the undying regard and respect of millions of their fellow-citizens.
  The Motion in its final paragraph tells of those who have passed beyond that knowledge, of whom the noble Earl spoke with so much feeling. Perhaps, although one does not desire to enumerate names, I may be pardoned if I mention in this connection the name of my colleague and friend Lord. Kitchener, not merely because he was the creator of the new Army but because he was the only British Field-Marshal and the only British Minister who ever laid down his life in war. One thinks, too, of the gallant Admirals who went down with their ships—Cradock, Hood, Arbuthnot—and of all the innumerable crowd of men of the most mature service and achievement, and of boys of boundless promise who were the light of their homes, and who will return no more to their native country. In this war the country has passed through the fire. It is due to those whom we are honouring and commemorating that it was not a consuming fire; and
  482
  it is for the country, sobered and strengthened in a steady resolve, to see that it is a cleansing fire, through which having passed, we shall become a wiser and a better nation.
  One word on the second Motion of the noble Earl, that in honour of the great French soldier to whom we desire to pay a unanimous tribute. Marshal Foch, from all one knows of him, seems to be the ideal French soldier, and to represent in the fullest degree the genius of Southern France to which he belongs; always cheerful, tirelessly energetic, and exercising a magnetic influence over the men whom he commands. We have sometimes observed a tendency to depreciate bookish soldiers. Marshal Foch, as we all know, is a scientific military writer of the first rank. But in spite of that fact he has lost nothing of a fierceness in attack which might seem to belong rather to the mere gladiator type of soldier. The fact is that the unity of command with which the war so fortunately concluded depended on the existence of a French Commander able to undertake that high office. It is no depreciation of that grate soldier Marshal Joffre to say that while he was Commander-in-Chief it would have been premature to attempt that unity of command. What we can join in saying with fervour is what Sir Douglas Haig said at the Mansion House, that it was indeed fortunate that when the hour arrived the man was there—such a man as Marshal Foch.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, there is little need to add words to the tribute paid in language of stirring eloquence to those whom we are honouring to-day. The two speakers to whom we have listened have very largely covered the ground. This is one of the occasions on which we can count on there being no discordant note. But I venture to ask you to let me supplement quite briefly one or two things which have been already so admirably said. Both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess have referred, as was indeed fitting, to former occasions upon which votes of thanks have been proposed and carried with unanimous voice by Parliament to those who have fought and conquered in great wars. But there is in the comparison a good deal that is worth pursuing. There is a very marked difference which sets apart the facts of to-day from the facts of those former times, and it seems to me

  483
  it bears significantly upon the reality and the value of the vote which is given by us in the name of a united country.
  When on former occasions votes were passed and carried those who had staved at home and had had little personally to do with the war or its events, I think we may say without exception, were thanking those who had gone forth and fought for their protection and for the safety of the country. On this occasion—not merely because of the enormously augmented size of the armies and of the Navy and to the consequent penetration into every home of associations and personal links with the men on service—but for other reasons as well we have all of us had a knowledge of what has been happening day by day; we have been immersed in the whole facts of the war, and even perhaps engaged in definite work in connection with it to a degree which gives quite a different character to the vote which we, with that full knowledge, are passing to the men to whom we owe just everything, for their leadership, their bravery, and all that is meant by the victory which they have won.
  It is curious to test such a comparison between those former occasions and the present. You can test it very markedly with regard to our literature. A hundred years ago in the first decade of the nineteenth century England was in the throes of the Napoleonic Wars. If any of your Lordships will take the pains to look over a list of the popular books, read and known by everybody, that were published at that time you would be startled to find how one after another sees the light, obtains a wide circulation, and lives on with practically no reference to what was happening at that time. Between 1808 and 1815 there were numerous books—Sir Walter Scott, Jane Austen again and again, Charles Lamb, George Crabbe, Sydney Smith and a great many more—which received at once a wide circulation and immense popularity, some of which were introduced by prefaces of a. good deal of deliberation; and hardly any of them made reference to the fact that a great war was being waged throughout the world, and that even soldiers were fighting across the seas. We do not forget, of course, that there were vivid and forcible war pamphlets, and there were marked exceptions to what I have said—the sonnets of Wordsworth and a great many more war sonnets and other bits of literature; but speaking
  484
  generally, if any of your Lordships doubt the fact, I would ask you to take any handbook of literature, and see what the result is, and test the literature to-day in a similar way. Ask any expert in the handling and publication of the books of to-day, and he will tell you that in the first eighteen months or two years of the war practically nothing was published, or at least found sale, except books about the war, or the countries in which the war was being waged. Practically nothing else. Then came the next stage when the shops were filled with books bearing indirectly upon the war—essays about the war and democracy—which had an exceptional circulation for books of the serious and solid sort that many of these were. Then there have been other books bearing less directly but pretty closely upon the war and its facts, and notably there has been the extraordinary product of poetry which the war has brought to light.
  Every one of your Lordships knows how certain men—some of whom have laid down their lives and some of whom are still with us—have learnt in the discipline of the field something which bore fruit in the work of their pens as poets. Now for the first time we are, so the experts tell us, beginning to go back to comparatively normal conditions in the literary world. How does that bear upon our thanks to-day? It seems to me to hear very closely. It means that the people of England—in whose names we are thanking the Navy and the Army to-day for the leadership they gave, the courage they showed, and the victory they have, under God, achieved for our country and our Empire—are offering thanks as men and women who know of what they are speaking, who have watched it bit by bit, who have traced it along its course, and who have seen what the issues involved were and how those issues have been dealt with as the war has run on. They have read and talked and worked in connection with very little else but this during these years of strenuous war. In short, although the war of to-day in the large sense of the word is a far more complex and elaborate thing then the wars of former times, the subject has been far better understood than ever was the case ire days gone by, at any rate with regard to civilians. I think that has beep first, because of the constant intercourse between our people at home and the men, mainly the wounded, who have returned. That daily intercourse for which in other ways we are so thankful—

  485
  of the womanhood of England with the wounded in our hospitals, has had the result that they have become acquainted at first hand and with extraordinary rapidity with the actual facts of what was happening, and the scenes and incidents of war have become familiar in a way that was impossible before. Every one who has experienced it has realised the extraordinary rapidity with which that has taken place.
  It has fallen to me on many occasions to speak to men lying comfortably in our London hospitals who were wounded on the previous afternoon, and, on one occasion, the same morning. What that means in the tribute it bids us pay to the organisation which rendered such a thing possible, goes beyond all words. But it has had the other effect of keeping people abreast of what was happening and made them familiar with a thoroughness of knowledge and intensity of erring which would have been impossible in any other way. That rapidity is an entirely novel thing. I do not know whether many of your Lordships can carry your memories back to reading De Quineey's essay on the English Mail Coach, where he describes in detail how during the Napoleonic Wars the laurelled coaches went through the country bringing to the people news of events that happened a few weeks before. If we contrast that with what has been happening in this war, how people were kept abreast day by day with what was taking place, and for that reason how much more interesting and important is the vote of thanks which people are able to give to-day to those people because of their intimate acquaintance with the work they have been doing. We know now what it is for which we are thanking them—the leadership of our soldiers and sailors in strife more gigantic in its scale, and more terrific in character than the world has ever known.
  Reference has been made to the contrast between the scale of a war to-day and the scale of bygone wars. I doubt whether, until we look into it a little, we take in the extent of that contrast. I am one of those—there are several others in the House I am sure—whose boyhood was full of stories about and even had dim recollections of the Crimean War, and we believed that it had been a time of widespread and amazing carnage. It was in a sense. The losses were great in proportion
  486
  to the number of men engaged. But do your Lordships know how many men from the British Isles actually died in battle in the whole of the Crimean War?—2,755. Of those who were wounded 1,847 died afterwards; making a total loss of 4,600 Men. We know that the losses from illness Were terrible; no less than 17,500 men, or something of that kind, died from that cause. But if we contrast those figures with what we are talking of to-day—the death of 700,000 subjects of the King, of whom 550,000 came from the United Kingdom—we see what the difference is between that death-roll and one of 2.755. Those facts are worth while calling attention to as a reminder of the magnitude of the issues which have been involved and of the things we have been allowed to see. We have been watching a war more terrible in its character and more far-reaching in some of its results than anything the world has ever seen.
  If there is one man in this country who never exaggerates, whose words are spoken with a wealth of knowledge well weighed in their temperateness and sobriety, it is Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. In a written document on the, subject Sir Douglas Haig says—
  "Never has death taken so many forms at once so violent and so insidious as in these years; never has it been so ever present or its arms so fax-reaching; never has the mere act of living been so exacting and so burdensome. Yet neither the constant presence of death nor the prevailing discomfort of living was sufficient to break the spirit of the men many of them young, most of them but inadequately prepared by previous training for the tremendous tasks they were, called Tilton to perform."
  That is why from our hearts we are thanking the officers and men alike for the immense task they accomplished in rolling back forces whose triumph would have meant disaster for the world and the certainty of more and, perhaps, immediate wars to come. Once more I will quote the words of Sir Douglas Haig. He says—
  "Nothing other than a creed such as theirs could have maintained them throughout the long, wearing agony of trench warfare, could have sustained them in the desperate struggles of 1916 and 1917, and after the supreme triumph of March and April of last year have carried them forward in triumph to the ultimate victory which is theirs to-day. I lay my reverent tribute to their great faith and unbounded patience their astounding cheerfulness and courage unsurpassed."
  I think it is well that we should have that testimony of one who will shortly take his place in this House.

  487
  It has been pointed out again and again by our foremost thinkers and speakers that it has been our lot in this generation to witness the most stupendous episode in the history of the human race. There have been great cataclysmic strokes in the world's story before—the invasion of the Barbarians of Europe, the French Revolution and what it meant, startled the world at that time, and the stories live in history as great incidents of the world's life. These, however, pale into comparative insignificance before this, in the truest sense of the words, great drama—the acting before the world of the whole story, its inception, its progress, its ending, bringing to an end what has been described as a moral anachronism which it was endeavoured to force upon the men and women of our time. It has been our lot to witness and to record it. I think it is well that the records should be complete, for I imagine that a few generations hence people will find it hard to credit certain incidents which have been happening in these tremendous years.
  It is not a small thing or a small gain that it should have happened in the evolution of human science and knowledge that photography should have come in some degree to maturity in time to record in a manner which could never be wholly false, at any rate, events which years hence would not always be believed. And if passing from photography to human art and handicraft we look, for example, at such a collection of pictures as can be found here and there on the walls of the Royal Academy of this year, when we know that these pictures are exhibited not by people who know nothing about it but that thousands and thousands of those who witnessed the sights with their own eyes have criticised what is there shown, whether it be the horrors of the conflict or the devastation involved—we are glad to know that these things will go down to history and that the world may have on record what were the facts which the men and women of to-day had to face and dealt with in the actions for which we are giving thanks to them to-day. I am sanguine enough to believe that no future generation will ever see again what ours has seen. If they do see anything like these horrors, I suppose it is indisputable that, with the progress of science, they will be ten times greater than any we have known, if there should be a. recurrence of conditions which render them possible at all. Heaven
  488
  forbid that we should relax any effort that is needed, or do anything that would leave us unprepared for what might occur. But may we not believe that the probability, though certainly not negligible, is comparatively small?
  If the great victory for which we are thanking God and thanking our heroes to-day be indeed the ending of the world's great struggles, then deep should be our gratitude to those whose genius, prowess, and, courage have thus ended it. We thank the great Admirals and Generals who have fought and toiled and led our Forces to the victory that has been given to us all. They have been constantly reminding us that it is the morale of the troops rather than physical prowess that tells in the end. I was glad to hear the noble Marquess in his speech refer to one whose memory must be in the thoughts of many of us to-day—Lord Kitchener—because to him I feel we owe in no small degree the strength of purpose as regards the morale of our troops which was due in part at least to the pressure that he brought to bear, both in India and in England, upon all that belonged to the higher and the deeper side of the life of our troops, to keep that pure and clean and strong. His action has been followed by the great Generals who came after him, and to them we are returning thanks to-day. We are grateful to the combatants and grateful to the non-combatants who bore their place in these great years of war. I suppose the degree of medical skill that has been shown in the war is something that has no parallel in the stories of wars that happened before. We desire to thank the men whose self-sacrifice I think is sometimes not adequately remembered—the medical men giving up positions at home of real importance and influence and devoting themselves during long years in the most self-sacrificing way to the service of their fellow men.
  The noble Marquess has also spoken of the chaplains. He has referred to the testimony of practically every General that we did not do wrong when we encouraged our chaplains and staff to offer themselves for the fullest possible service, which they were only too anxious to undertake in going forward in the deadliest parts of the front line and in embuing the forces with a spirit of fellowship. Our thanks are due to them for perhaps the unforeseen results of some of their great

  489
  actions. I believe it, not to be in vain that so many of our men have passed through a period of the discipline which the Army gives. These nervous, excitable times that follow the war may seem to be a strange outcome of that disciplinary training. Speaking generally, however, I think we should be thankful for the lessons of discipline which the men have grown accustomed to and in many case; have learnt to value.
  Above all, we are thanking our Admirals, Generals, and men for the conclusion of a great conflict which has been one of deep and fundamental principle. What it would have meant for Europe, for Asia, perhaps most of all for the child races of the world if Germany had won, one literally trembles to imagine. It is because the conflict had from the first for its basis and essence assertion of great principles that the issue uplifts our resolves to-day. Under such leadership and example from the Field our, people have acted worthily, and will, I believe, go on acting worthily in the days that lie ahead. A few years ago, in days of what looked liked assured peace, we wondered, many whether if the crisis should come it would indeed be as we have seen it to be. The crisis came and brought the answer to any craven fear. There was a gathering some ten or twelve years ago to recognise in grateful memory the heroes of the Crimea and the Mutiny. Among the words which that occasion called forth were these—
  "One service more we dare to ask—
  Pray for us, heroes, pray,
  That when fate lays on us our task
  We may not shame the day."
  It is because, when our turn came and the task was laid upon them, our heroes did not shame the day, that we are thanking them with our whole hearts here and now.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, has so perfectly expressed what we all feel about the services of the Navy that I have nothing to add to what he said. I would only desire to associate myself with every word that he so eloquently uttered, and with the thoughts of gratitude and admiration which lay below them. I should like, however, on this occasion to remind Parliament and the nation of the debt of gratitude which they owe to three great seamen whose names could not have been included within the ambit
  490
  of this Vote of Thanks. I allude to Admiral-of-the-Fleet Sir Frederick Richards, Admiral-of-the-Fleet Lord Walter Kerr, and Admiral-of-the-Fleet Lord Fisher. These three then held the office of First Sea Lord consecutively over a period of more than fifteen years, and during those years the foundations of a modern Fleet were laid. It is no exaggeration to say that without the devoted work of these three officers, based as it was on profound professional skill, and without their long foresight and forethought, the Navy never could have achieved this stupendous sea triumph. I would not that England should forget them to-day.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall proceed to put these Motions separately. The Question is, "That His Majesty's most gracious Message be considered, and that a humble Address of Thanks and of Concurrence he presented to His Majesty therefor."
  On Question, Motion carried nemine contradicente.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, ''That a Vote of Thanks be passed to the imperial Forces and to Marshal Foch."
  EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I respectfully suggest that we signify the exceptional character of this occasion by carrying the Vote standing?
  Their Lordships accordingly rose, and, standing, agreed to the Motion nemine contradicente.

MARTIAL LAW IN INDIA.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL rose to call attention to the sentences under Martial Law in India with special reference to the case of Harkissen Lal.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, serious events have been taking place in India to which it is well that public opinion should be directed, particularly as they have been, I think, somewhat inadequately reported in the Press of this country. I refer to the various trials by Courts-martial which have been taking place in that country. There have been charges made against the accused of a serious character, and severe sentences have been passed upon them, including in many cases, I

491
think I am right in saying, the death penalty. I should like to-day to make my remarks rather of an exploratory nature for the purpose of ascertaining what the facts are and what has happened, as I think not very much is known about them as yet, and it may be necessary to recur to the matter later in the session when we have more information before us. I would like to ask if I can be told to-day how many persons have been sentenced to death by courts-martial, in how many eases that sentence has been carried out, and whether in all cases the accused have had an opportunity of appeal to the Privy Council before the execution of sentence.
In putting this Question I ought to apologise personally to the noble Lord who I understand is to reply that I did not communicate with him more in detail beforehand, but that was solely due to my absence from London and not to any desire to embarrass him in any way in dealing with the matter. I have very little information except with regard to one case, the case of Harkissen Lal, and with regard to that I should like to put to the noble Lord the information which has been given to me and to ask him how far it agrees with his version of what has happened. We want to consider in this matter, when we have all the facts before us, whether the action that has been taken amounts to a necessary, although severe, repression of sedition and treason, or whether it amounts to a mere exhibition of autocratic power which has not been justified by the circumstances.
In this particular case I think I ant right in saving the sentence has been one of transportation for life and the offence, so I am given to understand, was that of advising people in Lahore to close their shops. If that be tree it would naturally occur to all of us that there was some disproportion between the offence and the sentence. This gentleman is a barrister-at-law of the Middle Temple. I do not say that that, in itself, is sufficient to raise a presumption. Had he been a member of Gray's Inn it might have been otherwise. He resided at Lahore and is, I am told, about fifty years of age, carrying on the business of a banker. The agitators in India, I am informed, prepared a day of humiliation, as a protest against the Rowlatt Acts, for observance by the native population, and originally appointed March 30. Although some manifestations
492
took place on that day, the date was generally postponed to April 6, when a day of humiliation was observed at Lahore at Harkissen Lal's instigation. He issued a notice in the local papers recommending among other things the closing of shops. I do not know what the other things were. I do not know whether anything worse or more violent than the closing of shops was recommended, but there is no suggestion that it was. It appears that it is solely as a result of his action on this day, his responsibility for the holding of the day of humiliation at Lahore and, in particular, for the closing of the shops, that he now stands charged with sedition.
The legal circumstances connected with this case appear to me to want some explanation. According to my information it was not until April 13 that Martial Law was declared in the Punjab, this offence, if this was the offence, having been committed, your Lordships will remember, on April 6. The effect of the declaration of Martial Law was to bring into operation Bengal Regulation No. 10 of 1804. Some very old Regulation of a penal nature is apparently revived by the declaration of Martial Law. The effect of the declaration is to suspend the functions of the ordinary Criminal Courts of Judicature, and the Governor-General is empowered to direct the immediate trial by courts-martial of persons owing allegiance to the British Government. Then, on the day following that declaration, the Governor-General in Legislative Council promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 1919, giving power to the Local Government to appoint Commissions to try persons charged with offences under Bengal Regulation No. 10, and to exercise all the powers of General Court Martial under the Indian Army Act. The Ordinance made provision for the trial of all persons charged with offences referred to in the Bengal Regulation, dated after April 13, while the Ordinance itself is made to come into force between May 15 and 16. On April 11 Harkissen Lal was arrested, and he was deported to a place which I pronounce with some fear, Isakhel, on the North West Frontier of the Punjab, outside the Martial Law area, where he was given his liberty. On April 21 a further Ordinance was promulgated empowering the Commission under Ordinance No. 1 to try any persons charged with any offence. After that Ordinance had been issued Harkissen Lal was arrested on May 8 where he was, outside the area of

493
Martial Law, and brought back to Lahore to stand his trial lot an offence against Regulation No. 10. He had great difficulty in getting a pleader to act for him. The Military authorities prevented any pleader he wanted from outside coming into the Martial Law area.
At the time these facts were communicated to me there were grave doubts as to when he would be tried, or for what he would be tried. Telegrams were sent which no doubt the noble Lord received at the India Office, and by the way a complaint is made that a telegram sent to Messrs. Barrow, Rogers & Nevill, who would have acted for him in this country, was intercepted or stopped by the Censorship. I should be very glad to know if telegrams were sent and were stopped; they certainly were not received. These gentlemen wrote to the Secretary of State, and I think I am right in saying that they interviewed the noble Lord who is to reply. They were told about the telegram to the Secretary of State. More information has been obtained from a copy of the Leader of May 26, which published in exlenso these cables. Harkissen Lal was apparently to be tried at this date, and has been tried since. He was charged with a long set of offences which I will read to your Lordships in a moment—treason and sedition, and matters of that kind. He was charged before the Martial Law Commission for conspiracy, waging war, sedition and membership of an unlawful assembly. "Membership of an unlawful assembly" I know nothing about, but I ask whether the charge of conspiracy and waging war does really refer only to the action in recommending a day of humiliation, or whether it refers to something further. Perhaps the noble Lord will inform your Lordships on the point.
Your Lordships will also notice that be has apparently been tried under an Ordinance which was made retrospective, for doing something was was not an offence, or if an offence, was not, triable by Court-Martial at the time the offence was committed, and could not have been tried by Court Martial except by virtue of the retrospective Ordinance made afterwards. I should be glad if the noble Lord will deal generally with the offences alleged against the various leaders of the revolt, as they are regarded, and if at the same time some official statement could be made, because apparently news is not very fully published
494
in this country on these matters. I should like to ask, in this connection, whether Press cables on these matters are censored, In setting out in any official statement the offences of these gentlemen I think it should be stated for public information not merely that the charge is sedition, conspiracy, or waging war, but that the specific acts which it is alleged they have committed should also be stated. To wage war sounds a very serious charge, but if it is merely recommending shop keepers to close their shops it sounds a very different thing. It would be well if the specific acts were given in any statement published by the India Office. It is desirable that some official statement should be issued, because there were many trials and severe sentences, and. I am convinced the public would like to be satisfied that injustice has not been done, that people have had a fair trial, that the sentences have not been disproportionate to the offence, and that the offences have been real offences of which the Government were bound to take notice.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the matter to which fan noble Earl has not referred. If he had realised the situation in the Punjab I think, perhaps, he might have been less ready to assume that injustice had been done. I am sure that is not in the least his fault, but it is the fault of the reticence which we have observed in regard to matters affecting India—a reticence which, I believe, will lead to some extremely unpleasant surprises on the part of the public.
The rising in the Punjab was unlike anything which has happened since the Mutiny. It is the first time since those dark days that the cry "Kill the English" was raised. It is also the first time that mobs have been led by English-speaking Indians, dressed in European dress. I am told from a private source that an English woman belonging to the British Zenana, Mission was caught by the mob and received six great wounds on her head. She was nearly killed. A kindly Indian said, "She is only an English Mission Miss, and she does no harm," but the, mob shouted, "She is English, kill her." That was the kind of spirit which animated the mobs in Delhi, Amritsar, Lahore, and other places. The unfortunate woman just escaped with her life, and she owes

495
her life to the gallant Sikhs who saved a good many of our helpless fellow-countrymen and countrywomen.
But for the strong action of Sir Michael O'Dwyer there might have been no Europeans left in the Punjab, and the situation might have become desperate. We ought to remember that fact in assuming at once that injustice has been done to some of the people concerned. We ought to remember that the sentences, if they were somewhat severe, may have been justified by the great gravity of the situation at the time. The noble Earl does not seem to know that this was part of a well organised revolt just as has happened in Egypt. As to the closing of the shops, to which the noble Earl referred, I do not know whether he is aware that in India this is always a signal for riot. When shops are ordered to be closed you know riot is at hand. Therefore, while I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House would be most anxious that no injustice should be done, I ask you to remember that the situation was very critical, and if it had not been grasped by a strong hand a large number of our countrymen and countrywomen would have been killed.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, I regret that owing to the absence of the noble Earl (Lord Russell) from town he was not able to communicate with me and tell me what were the precise points upon which he desired information, with the result that some of the points put to me to-day I cannot answer, because I have no information with regard to them; but so far as I can, I shall endeavour to give what I consider to be a connected narrative of the events which resulted in these convictions, including that of Mr. Harkissen Lal, and other gentlemen mentioned. Before I go into that I should like to say that, in common with all the sentences passed by the Courts-Martial, or Special Commissions of Courts-Martial, Mr. Harkissen Lal's case has been reviewed by the Local Government, and we received a cable yesterday saying that the sentence, which seemed so severe to the noble Earl, of transportation for life and forefeiture of property, has been remitted entirely with regard to forfeiture, and with regard to transportation commuted to two years rigorous imprisonment.
496
Before I pass on I should like also to mention that the offence with which he was charged, amongst others, was, under Section 121A of the India Penal Code, of waging war against His Majesty, and that the only punishment provided by the law is sentence of death, or transportation for life, accompanied in either case with forfeiture of property, and that no other sentence can be awarded if the accused is found guilty of the offence with which he is charged. As I have said before, all these sentences by Courts-Martial and Special Commission are being reviewed from the very beginning by the Local Government, and in this particular case our information received yesterday is that the sentence has been commuted to two years rigorous imprisonment, and the forfeiture has in this case, as in all other cases, been remitted. I should like also to make an observation with reference to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, about the closing of shops being a signal for revolt. I do not know that, nor is there any information in the possession of the India Office or of the Secretary of State for India, which would enable me to say that that is a correct statement.
Now, my Lords, I can best supply the information which the noble Earl desires by giving as short a narrative as I can, in a connected form, of the events which have resulted in these and other convictions. If I omit to give any information which the noble Earl desires, I shall be glad to give it to him on his communicating with me. The Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (commonly called the Rowlatt Act) was passed by the Legislative Council of India on March 18, 1919, in spite of the opposition of the non-official members thereof, and it was preceded as well as followed by a widespread agitation in all parts of India, including the Punjab. A determined agitation, as well as resort to passive resistance, was threatened before the measure was actually passed, and became more active afterwards. It followed a double line of action—namely, direct criticism of the Act by means of public speeches and actions, and the initiation of the movement of passive resistance by a vow of satya graha (observance of truth). This latter movement in particular, to which an influential leader of Indian public opinion, Mr. Gandhi, gave his support and countenance, was ushered in by demonstrations of the

497
observance of a day fasting and the closing of shops and places of business.
On March 30, the day originally fixed as the day of fasting, many shops were closed in Delhi in sympathy with the movement, but the efforts of the crowd to impose abstention upon the Railway refreshment contractor at the Delhi Railway Station, caused the first collision with the police. The disturbances of that day wore quelled in fact with the help of the military, and so far as can be ascertained some five or six persons amongst the rioters were killed, and fifteen or sixteen others wounded. Thereafter the promoters of the satya graha arranged that the 6th of April should be observed throughout India as a day of humiliation, the design being to cause the complete cessation of work as a sign of a protest against the obnoxious measure. On April 6 many places of business and shops were closed in various parts of India, including the Punjab. On April 9 Mr. Gandhi, who was on his way to Delhi, was turned hack to his own Province—namely, Bombay—as it was considered undesirable for him to visit the Provinces of Delhi and the Punjab, which were in a state of excitement.
On April 10 slight disturbances took place at Lahore, at which the police were called in, and a few casualties occurred. Thereafter disturbances more of less serious followed in various parts of India—for example, Bombay, Calcutta, and Ahmedabad, etc.—but the outbrak in the Punjab was inure determined and prolonged, and it may be useful to state in chronological order the events which occurred in the Punjab from April 10 onwards, and which may be directly attributed to the movements above described. Of course, with regard to disturbances of this kind no single cause can be said to be the actual cause, and there must be many more direct and indirect causes and predisposing causes. On April 10 there was serious rioting at Amritsar (Punjab) after the removal by executive order of two prominent organisers of the agitation against the Rowlatt Act—namely Dr. Kitchlew (Mohammedan) and Mr. Satys Pal (Hindoo). The Town Hall and the National and the Chartered Banks were burnt down. Five Europeans were killed, and there were about thirty deaths among the rioters. On the 12th at Kasur the Post Office and the Munsiff's Court were burnt, the Treasury
498
was attacked, and two British warrant officers were murdered, and three other officers severely wounded. By this time the Government of India had good reason to believe that the Punjab disturbances were not sporadic riots but amounted to organised risings with definite anti-Government and still mom definite anti-British bias, and although co-ordination between different places was indifferent, simultaneous cutting of railway and telegraph lines at widely different places and deliberate destruction of Government property, and attacks upon and burning of public buildings, pointed to some common purpose. Several Europeans had been brutally murdered, and the lives of Europeans in isolated stations were in great peril.
In these circumstances the Government of India, at the instance of the Local Government (Punjab), sanctioned on April 13 last the application of the State Offences Regulation X of 1804 to the Districts of Lahore and Amritsar; or, in other words, declared Martial Law in the said districts, subject to the following modifications. First, the maintenance of ordinary Courts for ordinary offences. Notwithstanding the declaration of Martial Law in those areas the ordinary Courts were still sitting and dealing with ordinary offences. Secondly, the appointment of Special Commissions composed of men of ripe experience and judicial knowledge instead of the Courts-Martial which would otherwise have tried offences under Martial Law. These Special Commissions were composed in each instance of two Judges of experience and one Indian magistrate, so that technically a special Commission was more or less of the character of a special tribunal of great experience.
EARL USSEEL: Do I understand that the effect of Regulation No. 1 (1919) was to substitute the special Commissions for an ordinary Court-Martial?
LORD SINHA: That is so. To resume the narrative of events in the Punjab. On April 14 the trouble spread to Gujranwala, where a large mob attacked the station and burnt the overbridge, destroying subsequently the church, Dak bungalow, and other Government property. It stopped and looted a passenger train and cut the wires on every side. From the 15th to the 18th riots of a similar nature took place at Wazerabad, Sangla Hill, Lyallpur, and Chukurkhana, and in Gujrat

499
on the 19th when the railway station was sacked, records burnt, and telegraphs destroyed all along the line. Martial Law was extended to Gujranwala District on the 16th, to Gujrat on the 20th, and to Lyallpore on April 23. The proclamation of Martial Law had a beneficial effect, and the outbreak and outrages ceased soon afterwards.
I have shown already that martial law was proclaimed in only five districts—Lahore, Amritsar, Gujranwala, Gujrat, and Lyallpore. It was abrogated in Gujrat District and most rural areas on May 28. On June 9 it was discontinued everywhere except the railways and Lahore and on June 11 it was discontinued at Lahore.
The information which the noble Earl wanted with regard to the Regulation of 1804 is this. It was an ancient law revived for a particular purpose. The impression which the noble Earl had with regard to it is hardly correct. The Regulation of 1804 merely empowers the Governor-General in Council to declare Martial Law when there is open rebellion or insurrection. That power exists by virtue of that Regulation, and was revived by legislation of the ordinary kind in 1872. That regulation therefore Means nothing more than this, that when there is insurrection or rebellion in any part of India it is competent to the Governor-General to declare Martial Law over these areas, and to continue it so long as the insurrection or rebellion exists.
I will deal next with the tribunals which administered the law during the time that Martial Law was in operation. They were of the following kind. First there was the special Commission, to which I referred just now, composed of two experienced Judges and one Indian magistrate which dealt with offences under Regulation 10 of 1804—that is to say, offences committed by people Who had been taken, so to speak, flagranti deliclo Later on, by another Regulation which the noble Earl mentioned, all other offences of a serious nature which the Local Government directed them to try or committed to them for the purpose of trying, were dealt with by them. That is the highest kind of tribunal that, existed during this time. Then there were Courts-martial which summarily disposed of offences against Martial Law—for example, Orders issued by the General Officer commanding,
500
Curfew Orders ordering people not to go out at night after a certain time, Orders controlling the price of commodities such as foodstuffs, Orders to open shops, and so on. These were minor offences—breaches of rules and regulations made by the military authorities—and were punished by Regulations made by them which also defined the penalties. The offences were summarily tried and are in any case not punishable with higher punishments than two years imprisonment. There were also in operation the ordinary Criminal Courts which dealt with ordinary offences as well as offences arising out of these disturbances. Just as Martial Law has been altogether abrogated in the whole of the area since June, so all Martial Law tribunals have now been dissolved, and there is only one tribunal under the Defence of India Act still sitting and it has one or two more cases to try.
I will now give your Lordships the number of persons convicted by these different tribunals, the nature of the sentences, and what has been done by way of commutation. The most serious cases were all tried by the special Commissions. They tried 852 persons altogether, and 582 of them were convicted and 270 were acquitted. Offences against Martial Law Orders disposed of summarily, so far as figures are available up to now, were altogether about 1,500 cases. These were disposed of either by the summary Courts-Martial or by the ordinary Courts. I have already mentioned in connection with the sentences inflicted that it must be borne in mind that the special Commissions only tried cases of the most serious nature in which people were charged either with waging war, or with sedition, or with something of that kind, and under the law most of the offences were punishable, without alternative, either with death or with transportation for life. But sentences have from the beginning been subject to revision by the Local Government and the Government of India. Reductions and commutations have been decided on by the Local Government, and in nearly 500 cases large reductions have been granted. Apart from the above, all sentences by forfeiture are, without exception, being remitted by the Local Government.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know if the noble Lord gave the sentences actually imposed in the first instance. I do not think I caught them.
LORD SINHA: I have mentioned the number of persons convicted. With regard to the sentences, I have not yet given the details.
EARL RUSSELL: Having got the number convicted, I wanted to know what the original sentences were in those cases.
LORD SINHA: The original sentences were, in 108 cases the death sentence. Of these, 18 have been executed, not having appealed; 28 out of the 108 have been reduced to transportation for life, 23 to imprisonment for 10 years, 13 to imprisonment for 7 years, 21 to shorter terms of imprisonment, and there are 5 cases now to be dealt with by the Privy Council. The rest of the cases are also pending, inasmuch as the same point that had arisen in the case now under appeal also arises in them. But out of the 108 sentences awarded, only 18 were executed. And, as the Government of India informed us, the principle upon which the commutations have been granted is this—whenever there has been no factor of actual murder they have commuted the capital sentences either to imprisonment or transportation. As regards convictions by the inferior Summary Courts, there are about 1,500 of them. They are being separately reviewed case by case by the local Governments, which will doubtless grant reductions on a generous scale as they have done in the other cases.
With regard to the specific case of Mr. Harkissen Lal and those who were tried with him, I have already said that the offence with regard to which they were charged and of which they have been found guilty by the Special Commission, composed as I have already stated, was an offence under Section 121A—namely, of waging war, or conspiracy to wage war. The only sentence possible for the Court to award was that which it did award, namely transportation for life and forfeiture. That has been commuted. These cases are all now under appeal to the Privy Council, and therefore I consider that it would not be right and proper for me to deal with the facts of the case, or to deal with the question how far the facts of the case justified the verdict of the Court which tried them. Nor have I got the judgments with me even to place the findings in extenso before your Lordships. But from the short telegraphic summary that we have received in the India Office I can
502
only say that it is stated that the findings of the Commissions are that the mob was incited to violence by their inflammatory speeches and that in effect they were the chief local organisers of the risings—not that they had been convicted as the noble Earl's information seemed suggest, of waging war because they advised people to close shops. However that may be, their sentences have been reviewed and revised by the local Government, and reduced, as I have already said, in Mr. Harkissen Lal's case to two years' rigorous imprisonment, and to other terms of imprisonment for the others who were co-accused with him and convicted with him.
Having regard to what has fallen from the noble Earl, as well as from Lord Sydenham, I should like to repeat what the Secretary of State said with the concurrence of the Viceroy in another place on May 22 last—namely, that you cannot have disturbances of this kind and of this magnitude without an Inquiry into the causes and into the measures taken to cope with these disturbances. In circumstances of this kind time immediate and paramount duty (I think your Lordships will agree with me) of the Government of India was to protect life and to restore order; and at the same time it must use, as it was bound to use, the exceptional powers at its disposal only so far as was necessary for the immediate purpose; actions necessarily prompt, probably hasty, have to be reviewed and revised when order has once more been restored with a view to ensuring the confidence of the well-disposed that the action had been adequate and not merciless, sufficient but not excessive. The time has now arrived for this stage, and the Secretary of State and the Viceroy have been in constant communication by cable and I have every hope that a definite announcement with regard to the promised Inquiry will be duly made, and within a short time.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl has not answered one point. Is there any censorship of free communication by Press cables between India and this country at the present time?
LORD SINHA: I am afraid I am not able to answer that to-day.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am loth to intrude with a trivial criticism while a subject so grave as this is is being discussed, but there is one thing I should like to ask the noble

503
Lord, who sought to inflict a severe snub on Lord Sydenham by flatly contradicting his statement that the closing of shops was the signal for revolt. He went further and said there was no information in the India Office which would confirm that opinion. How on earth did the noble Lord the Under-Secretary know that my noble friend was going to make that particular statement, and how in the brief period, less than two minutes, which elapsed between his remarks and the Under-Secretary's reply was it possible for hint to make a search in the archives of the India Office which would justify so sweeping a statement as that? Unless the noble Lord has got the gift of second sight I cannot imagine anything that could have justified a statement of that kind. There are many things in India which are well known to those who have been there for which. I daresay, it would not be possible to find documentary evidence in the India Office, and the fact that my noble friend has not seen anything in the India Office to confirm his view is no proof that such a thing does not exist in India.
LORD SINHA: I must have made myself very much misunderstood if the noble Lord thought that I was administering a snub to Lord Sydenham when I made that statement. All I meant to say was this that, so far as I was concerned, I had no knowledge than it was a fact that the closing of shops was a signal of revolt. I have never heard it, I have never read it, I have not seen it stated either by any persons or in any book. I will also say this, that in connection with these disturbances and all the reports made front the Government of India to the India Office with which I have endeavoured to make myself familiar, I have not come across any statement to that effect by any person of authority or otherwise. And therefore, if I may humbly venture to say so, it did not require any foresight on toy part to know, or any second sight on my part to be able to answer, the statement which was made by the noble Lord when he said that was his impression—because I take it it is nothing more than that, for the noble Lord did not himself say that to his knowledge the closing of shops was a signal for revolt. It must be something which he has heard or read, and all I intended to say was that my knowledge and my information did not support that, and, so far as the reports in connection with these disturb
504
ances are concerned, all of which I have read, there is nothing to support the idea that the closing of shops was a signal for revolt. On the contrary, the reports show that the closing of shops was nothing more than a protest against the passing of obnoxious legislation.
LORD SYDENHAM: May I correct the noble Lord on one point. I did not say the closing of shops was a signal for "revolt"; I said for "riot," which is a very different matter. In the Punjab it was revolt, but in Bombay we know perfectly well if there is going to be a riot by the fact that the shops are being closed.
LORD SINHA: I mis-heard the noble Lord, and that is why I said that that was not my information.

IMPORTATION OF GOODS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to ask His Majesty's Government under what authority the Executive had placed an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition, and gunpowder. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I see the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade in his place, and I assume that he is there in order to answer this Question because I sent him information as to the nature of my complaint. So as to understand what the complaint really is, I must shortly tell your Lordships the conditions under which these so-called embargoes have been imposed.
I have before me an official document called the "Supplement to the Board of Trade Journal and Commercial Gazette," issued on July 31, 1919. Since that date there May have been some alteration in the number of articles involved, but there is no change as regards the question of principle. This "Supplement" has a consolidated list of import restrictions revised to date, and they are, put under two headings. Part I is "Articles which may be imported without license from the Department of Import Restrictions." I am not concerned with this list of articles except to point out that in my view neither the Board of Trade nor any other authority has power to make embargoes which depend on whether licences have been granted or not. Then there is Part II, "List of Articles which may not be imported without

505
licence from the Department of Import Restrictions," and under that latter head there are somewhere about 300 articles scheduled. It is not a matter which applies to a few articles but to a large number of ordinary articles of commerce.
To show your Lordships the nature of the schedule, I will mention a few of the commodities included in it. We find butter and buttons together, chemicals and clocks, embroidery and feathers, gin and hosiery, matches and metal boot protectors, saccharine and scissors, tomatoes and umbrella frames; and lastly, although they come before a different Department, paper and sugar. I do not wish to dwell on these articles more than to say that I have given them as illustrations to show the very wide range of goods or commodities included within the restriction that they cannot be imported into this country without the grant of a licence. One of the columns in this Schedule gives the extent to which licences will be issued, and we find that they fire issued as regards 20 per cent. of the imports in 1913, or 50 per cent. of the imports in some other year. So that in all those cases there is it restriction on the amount to be imported, which necessitates a discrimination as regards the grant of licences to traders by whom the import is authorised. As regards a very large number of these articles there is this note at the bottom of the schedule—
"Where no ration is stated" [where no percentage is granted] "the goods will be licensed only exceptionally as and when required."
One knows what that must mean so far as the consumer is concerned. If no licences are to be granted except as and when required the consumer probably may wait until the Greek Kalends, or beyond, until he gets any goods at all.
I am going to point out presently that in my view, under the authority on which the Board of Trade claim to be acting, I think they have no right to prohibit under the embargo system at all; but within that the very large question arises, whether, even if they have the right of general prohibition, they have the right in any sense to discriminate between particular traders, to grant licences to some and to refuse them to others. Certainly that is a policy inconsistent both with constitutional practice and with the statutory provisions as they exist at the present time. Let us see what this means. I do not wish to dwell upon this part of the case as I see the noble
506
Lord (Lord Emmott), who was at one time chairman of the Import Restrictions Committee, in his place, and he will be able to place the facts before the House.
LORD EMMOTT: It was only an advisory committee.
LORD PARMOOR: Still, the noble Lord was cognisant of what I might call the business conditions as regards these matters. This is a question, of course, which one would not seek to raise during war time, but it is a different matter now when the war is over and we have at any rate the attempted restoration of peace conditions. In the first place, this system of licensed embargoes in particular cases is the substitution of an artificial standard for the business standard of the requirements of customers. I myself ant very much opposed to the whole modern bureaucratic tendency of official interference, but I think you have it in its worst form when you have a tribunal, or official body, attempting in regard to as many as 300 commodities to decide what is or is not required for consumption in this country.
In the second place, it gives a power of discriminating between traders in the granting of licences. That is a power which no Executive in my opinion ought to possess. It is a dangerous power. It is a power which involves giving concessions of very large pecuniary value to particular traders, and, to use plain language—which I think we ought to use at a time like this—it is certainly capable of corrupt abuse. I am not suggesting that I have any knowledge of any particular case; I am merely dealing with conditions as they affect ordinary business lines and ordinary business arrangements. It is not right, in my judgment, that the Executive Government by its own operation should be able to discriminate in the giving of licences to some traders and refusing them to others; because owing to the importance and the value of such licences that power is undoubtedly capable of corrupt abuse. The same official interference adversely affects the free flow of trade and places unnecessary restrictions in the way of commerce. It does that particularly in the case of forward contracts, which are a very important part of the business operations of this country.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a question, as I am not sure that I gave him

507
information about this, because it was brought to my notice after I had an opportunity of telling him that I was going to bring up this matter. A large amount of business in this country is done by bills of lading—that is to say, the goods are not really for importation into this country but they go through our docks or Customs House, as the case may be, on their road to their ultimate destination. I am told that the discriminating licence principle is used even as regards goods which are being carried on a through bill of lading. That is a special form of interference with our business which might be of a very serious kind.
Take another illustration of what I mean as regards this official interference. It gives obvious opportunities for profiteering as regards particular individuals, because it gives them a favoured position, and a favoured position is really of the essence of profiteering. If you have everything in the open and everything free, profiteering becomes essentially difficult. Your Lordships will recollect that although there is opportunity for profiteering on the one hand, there is no benefit to the State on the other. We are not dealing with any question of duties. There is not a farthing, so far as the State is concerned, which comes from this system of discriminate licensing embargoes. Interference with the import of commodities in a certain sense tends to keep up prices, and what strikes me as a matter of vital importance is that the Government do not seem to appreciate that one of the most fertile causes of industrial unrest and industrial disquiet at the present time is dissatisfaction with high prices. If you want to put an end to these industrial disturbances the first element to be considered, and the most important factor, is that anything in the nature of artificial prices or prices unduly high should not exist longer than is absolutely necessary.
Then as regards production, Mr. Hoover and, I think, every member who spoke on the Supreme Economic Council, has pointed out that the only real cure for war devastation is the maximum of industrial production. If you really want to get reconstruction of industrial conditions you ought to encourage production to the utmost; but you certainly do not do that by this discrinimating system of licensing, which in many cases may prevent the very import which would pay for exports from this country. I have seen
508
two explanations given—I think they were given in another place—in justification of this system, on which I would like to say a word, apart from the more technical ground. It is said that it is necessary to protect key industries. It is impossible to justify an excuse of that kind when you see the wide nature of the commodities to which this discriminating licence principle is applied. I read out some of them to your Lordships, including tomatoes. Can any one say that a tomato is a key industry or that a particular licence system is necessary because an industry of that kind can be so described? The only second justification I saw—it was stated also in another place—was that it was necessary to keep up American exchange; but the great majority of goods to which a discriminating licence would apply could not possibly affect the American exchange in any way, because a large majority of the goods to which this principle is made applicable are not imported from America or have no relation to American trade.
There is one other fact I want to call attention to before I deal with the more technical point. I will deal with it very shortly having reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, said. In this case, as in many others, there has been introduced a principle of advisory councils. I regard advisory councils with great diffidence. Their effect is to weaken the responsibility of Ministers who ought to hear the brunt of responsibility on one side, and you introduce an element on the other side which, although at first sight it may appear to be an advantage, yet when you come to analyse the conditions I think clearly tells in an opposite direction. I merely make upon this point a complaint which has been made to me by large traders. They say, "If we ask for a licence as regards a particular commodity we are referred to the advisory council. Now the advisory council represents our rivals in trade. They are chosen because they have a knowledge of the trade in reference to which we are wanting a particular licence." Two questions are asked—first of all, "What price are you prepared to pay?" and, secondly, "What is time market in which you are going to purchase your commodity?" Those are exactly the two matters which a trader does not care to disclose to his commercial rivals. You therefore not only have a body which improperly, as I think, takes away the responsibility from the Minister,

509
but, in addition, you have a body often of rival traders, the very last persons to whom a particular trader would care to apply in connection with his own business for a licence as regards these commodities.
Having stated the nature of the conditions, I now ask the noble Lord what his authority is for a system of this kind. In the first place, I can say without any hesitation that the common law would give no countenance whatsoevor to a system of selective licences under a system of discrimination; on the contrary, every principle of the common law is that every one is to be treated equally and placed in the same position as regards matters of import or matters of export. Secondly, I am not aware—the noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong—of any justification under any of the Emergency Statutes or under the powers of D.O.R.A. I have made such inquiries as I could, but the answer has always been in the negative. I may say perhaps in addition to that one who was a Minister in the early days and who had considerable knowledge of the Emergency Statutes, speaking the other day in London gave it as his view and as the result of his research that none of the Emergency Statutes or none of the powers of D.O.R.A. could be called to the assistance of the Board of Trade in order to justify these discriminating embargoes.
On constitutional ground there is a well-grounded objection to all such discrimination; but I need not refer in any detail to the constitutional grounds, because there are two Statutes, one of which, I believe, is relied on by the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade, which in terms say that any such action as is now being taken as regards these discriminating embargo licences is in itself illegal. The first of these—and it is a measure of very great importance in our commercial law—is what is known as the "Monopoly" Statute, passed in the reign of James think the actual year was 1623. During the preceeding half century before that Act was passed there had been constant friction as regards the granting of licences to particular traders, giving them, as it would, menopoly conditions. As a matter of fact, the chairman of a committee to deal with these restrictions which was appointed was the great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke. In the result the Statute was passed. This Statute in terms, I will ask your Lordships
510
to notice, pronounces licences as contrary to the law of the realm (I am quoting from the Statute)—and to be regarded as utterly void and of no effect unless authorised by Act of Parliament. Whether there is any such authority I will come to in a moment. The only exceptions are the well-known provisions as regards inventions—that is, patent grants of fourteen years—and the law of copyright. Subject to these two exceptions, as this Statute of Monopoly stands, there is a declaration of the illegality of anything in the nature of discriminating licences. This point arises. In old days our forefathers fought the Tudor and Stuart Kings in order to have commercial freedom, apart front commercial interference, as regards this question. It appears from the bureaucratic tendencies of this age as though we were about to enter that fight over again, because in every Act, or almost every Act, of the present time there is something of bureaucratic interference, and at the same time the Act is so worded that bureaucratic interference cannot be called into question before the ordinary Courts of Law.
The next Act—and I believe this is the Act in force at the present time, and the only Act on which the Board of Trade relies—is the Customs Act of 1876. That Act is a Consolidation Act which comprises nearly thirty sections and has to be construed as a Consolidation Act. And let me say this. I have the Act here, as I thought it was well to have the reference. I will read this. So far as Section 39 is concerned it states this—
It shall be lawful to import into the United Kingdom any goods which are not by Statute at the time of the importation thereof prohibited."
That is the general principle, and then we come to the prohibitions. The prohibitions are, first of all, counterfeit coin, obscene prints, and matters of that kind. Next, we come to Section 43 which says—
"The importation of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, or any other goods may be prohibited by Proclamation or Order in Council."
There are two factors which appear to me to be perfectly clear on Section 43. First of all, it is totally out of accord with what is said in Section 43 that you should have discriminating licences at all. The prohibition of an article because it is, in itself, an article which ought not to be imported, is an entirely different factor, and is determined by different considerations, from

511
cases where you have this principle of discriminating licences.
The first point I make is that, so far as discriminating licences are concerned, the whole Act of 1876 is opposed to them and re-states the constitutional principle that they shall not be allowed. Then, as regards the words "or any other goods," it is clear, I think, to any one's mind that goods will be prohibited on the ground that they are in themselves undesirable things to be imported into this country. I am not going into any technical question of ejusdem generis or any legal point, but that is the widest interpretation possible. In my opinion certainly it could not cover the present case. That is why I ask the Government to state what their authority is for what has been done. After looking into all these matters, unless I have overlooked anything, it appears that there is no authority at all. It seems to me that what is done is, in itself, contrary, not only to the Common Law and constitutional practice but to the terms of the two sections to which I have called attention. I hope the noble Lord, when he comes to answer this Question, will be able to say that there is no point which has been overlooked which would give an authority which certainly cannot be derived from the only Acts to which, so far as I know, reference has ever been made.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I had no idea when I came here this afternoon that this question was going to be discussed in your Lordships' House but, as it has been brought forward and as I take a very deep interest in the matter, I feel compelled to ask your Lordships to be good enough to allow me to say a few words upon it. I shall not, of course, attempt to deal with the technical legal aspect, because that has been admirably dealt with by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I will content myself with saving that, so far as my humble judgment is worth anything—and I am afraid it is worth very little on legal matters—I entirely agree with what he has said. I cannot conceive how the words "or any other goods," following the words "arms, ammunition, gunpowder," can be reasonably contrued into the prohibition of such dangerous articles as flat irons, sewing machines, and metal fittings for corsets and suspenders.
When I had to do with this matter, as Chairman of an Advisory Committee
512
which never had the materials for dealing with the question until the month of March, there was a case, as there is to-day, for safeguarding, in some form or other, "key" industries. That is common ground. There was also, I think, a case, and there may be still a case, as regards a few industries for allowing industries which have been diverted from peace purposes to war purposes a reasonable allowance of time to get back to race production, and that was the line on which. if I had had to administer the matter I am very glad I had not, for it was an extraordinarily difficult question—I should have dealt with it.
I only want to make a few remarks this afternoon on the practical aspect (if this Question. I leave on one side for the moment the injury to trade which results from the hunt for a licence. I leave all the ridiculous affairs that occur from time to time. One of them I heard of recently, in which I believe a clerk in my old Department, owing to some misunderstanding with the Board of Agriculture, wrote to ask an applicant who wanted a licence to export a colt whether the colt was a steer. That ridiculous sort of thing does go on in the hunt for these licences. Protection by tariff may be a good thing or a bad thing—I am not going to discuss that question at all—but protection by prohibition subject to licence is the very worst form of protection that can possibly be invented for times of peace.
In the first place, prohibition subject to licence means that no man can make forward contracts to import prohibited goods into this country, because he does not know whether he will get a licence for them or not, and uncertainty is absolutely deadening to commerce. In the second place, such a system must be bureaucratically administered. Our trade has grown up under an individualistic system, in which each man has developed his own trade in his own way. What man can be found, what bureaucrat, however wise, can be found, who can estimate the precise quantity of prohibited goods which ought to be allowed into the country and can see the question in strict correlation with the prices and profits that are being earned in the trades at home producing the same things. I say no man is wise enough to do anything of that kind, and I need not remind your Lordships that neither Russia, nor America, nor Spain, which I quote

513
as the three countries having perhaps the highest prohibitive tariffs before the war, resorted to a system of prohibition of this kind. It is avowedly temporary, and it is a vicious system. Under a system of tariffs—I am not speaking in favour of a system of tariffs, as I am a Free Trader—all traders are treated alike; every importer has the same chance of importing. But under this system a licence is worth money; ex hypothesi the goods are in short supply, and the man who gets permission to import has obtained a permission which is worth money, and which he can sell, and I daresay sometimes does sell.
A licence of that kind, which is worth money, is a temptation to corruption. I agree with Lord Parmoor that it is no use mincing words about that. I do not suggest that there is any danger in the course of the next few years of anything like corruption coming into the Civil Service, but I can tell your Lordships what has happened in regard to export licences. There was more than one case in which men advertised in such a way as to suggest that they had special facilities for obtaining an export licence, and over and over again we had to bring them to book. There was one scoundrel engaged in a big firm who had advertised in this way. We naturally wrote to the firm and the man was discharged. We sent for him and made him alter the form of his advertisement. But it obviously is most undesirable that it should be open to anybody to advertise in such a way as to suggest that he has any special influence with a Government Department and can get favours which are worth money; yet that is the inevitable result of a system of licensing, whether for imports or exports.
Then, again, it is absolutely impossible to administer fairly a system of licensing. You cannot administer it fairly as between countries or as between individuals. Take the case of countries. Very soon after the Armistice it was found that rationing had been fixed for some prohibited commodities on the basis of a certain war year. The commodities in question were of interest to Canada, but Canada having been absorbed in manufacture for war purposes was not able to export them in that particular standard year, and therefore the 50 per cent., or whatever it was of the particular year, was unfair to Canada; and Canada naturally complained. The matter was put right. It came before the Cabinet and the Dominions were excluded
514
from these restrictions. Were inclined to be indiscreet in regard to the question I could state how unfavourably impressed I was in the negotiations in regard to that matter by the bureaucratic attitude of certain people.
I take another case. Matches are subject to prohibition, and a certain proportion is licensed. Again a war year was taken. During that war year all our importation of matches came from Scandinavia, but before the war Belgium supplied matches to a very considerable extent. What was done was this. We fixed this war year as the basis of our supply from neutral countries when our own mal-treated ally, Belgium, ought to have had first consideration. Of course, the matter was put light, but what a pity it is that any exasperation should have been caused to Belgium in regard to a matter of that kind? It is all part of the system, and its unfairness must go on as long as you have a system of licences.
As to individuals I need not press the point; it is obvious and apparent. A man goes one day and gets a licence; his rival goes the next and, as the ration is filled, he is refused. A man who wants to import goods is referred to his trade rivals, and told he must go cap in hand, pay any price they like, because the ration is complete. That may be the natural way of doing business by a bureaucracy but it is absolutely odious to any self-respecting British traders. In addition it means high prices, and in many cases quite unnatural profits. As Lord Parmoor has said, and as it is admitted, high prices and profiteering are perhaps the main causes of industrial unrest at the present time.
Take an article in which the Government itself is interested—motor cars. We are not content with the 30 per cent. duty. Motor cars are prohibited from import; the Government has a great many to sell. I know trades which are being held up because they cannot buy motor lorries for trade at reasonable prices, and people forget the harm that is being done to those trades which do not come into existence because of high prices. All they can see is the advantage of high prices to the particular trades which are benefitted. How can the Government convince the country that it is in earnest about the question of lower prices as long as things of this kind go on?

515
Finally, there is the question of the tendency of trades to ask for protection under this very vicious system. When I was concerned with the matter I was much interested by one petition from a certain branch of salt workers, who tried to make out a case for the prohibition of salt of a certain kind from Spain. This salt was sun dried, and these people pointed out that the sun of Spain, being much stronger than the sun of England, it was desirable they should have protection from the effects of the sun in Spain. It reminded me of the imaginary petition of the candle-makers for excluding the sun, with which Bastiat made such great fun. If that kind of argument were allowable, what about cotton, copper, rubber, and a great many other things from tropical climates on which we are absolutely dependent for the existence of our industries. In order to stop this craving for protection it is necessary, as soon as possible, that this system of import restrictions should be put an end to. On the broad grounds that this system is unfair; that it is, as I have plainly stated, a temptation to corruption, leads to inflated prices, makes profiteering legitimate, and leads to unjustified hopes and ridiculous claims, I beg that it may be ended as soon as possible.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just addressed the House have raised a most interesting discussion and gone over a great deal of ground. I would prefer, however, to come back to the Question on the Paper, from which I venture to suggest we have travelled a considerable distance. The noble Lord has asked a Question with regard to the embargoes, but his speech was devoted almost entirely to the question of discrimination.
LORD PARMOOR: The discriminating embargoes.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: He objected to the discrimination, but what he dwelt upon principally was the fact that by these embargoes the Government were able to use their powers of discrimination. I always feel myself very largely in agreement with Lord Emmott, but I could not quite understand one point he made when he was speaking of tariffs—that every would-be importer under the tariff system has the same chance of importing. I am not
516
quite aware that that is the general principle of the tariff system, so far as I understood it. But with regard to the question as a whole, if I may come back to it, the Question on the Paper is "under what authority the Executive had placed an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition and gunpowder." The restrictions on the importation of goods into this country, irrrespective of their origin, are imposed by Royal Proclamation. I need hardly remind your Lordships that since the war they have been in full progress, and that until the raising of the blockade the importation of goods of any kind was prohibited from enemy countries. I have before me the conditions under which trade is now permitted with those countries.
These restrictions are not imposed by the Board of Trade Regulations, or by Order in Council, but the Board of Trade is the Department responsible for preparing the Draft Proclamation for submission to the King The Act under which the Proclamations are issued is the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876, which my noble friend quoted, and Section 43 of which reads as follows:—
"The importation of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, or any other goods may be prohibited by Proclamation or Order in Council."
It has been suggested that the words "any other goods" should be interpreted somewhat narrowly to mean goods of the same kind as "arms, ammunition and gunpowder." I admit that to the man in the street the question does not seem very easy, but with regard to the legal aspect of the question I will not give any opinion of my own. In view of the doubts expressed as to the legality of some of the import prohibitions having regard to the suggested interpretation of the section the Government consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that the expression "any other goods" ought not to be treated as referring merely to goods ejusdem generis with arms, ammunition or gun-powder, but ought to be construed without qualification or limitation, and as extending to all goods of whatever character. Therefore your Lordships will see that His Majesty's Government is advised that these restrictions on the importation of goods as at present imposed are quite within the limits of the law as laid down.
LORD EMMOTT: Might I ask whether it is the fact that, as has been publicly stated, certain traders who have ignored the Proclamations and imported goods have not been prosecuted by the Government.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I have no knowledge of any such case, but if the noble Lord will bring any such case forward I shall be very glad to see that it is thoroughly investigated.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no desire to detain the House, because the whole case was so fully and clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord below the gangway, and also by the noble Lord opposite, but I confess it does seem to me that the case having been so stated by those two noble Lords, and on lines somewhat broader than the mere terms of the question, that they are entitled to expect from His Majesty's Government some reply on the policy of the question rather beyond the quite clear and explicit reply which the noble Lord opposite has made in response to the actual terms of the question.
Both noble Lords argued with great force that the indefinite continuance of this policy is disadvantageous, for the reasons which they gave and which I will not attempt to repeat. They showed that these prohibitions do definitely act in restraint of trade; and altogether apart from what I may call the moral objections which Lord Emmott mentioned—namely, the practical certainty that a system of licences is almost bound to become a system of preferences—both noble Lords showed that the hampering process due largely to the uncertainty attaching to the licensing system is having a definitely damaging effect upon trade expansion at the moment when that expansion is of such vast importance to the country. I confess I do think that those two noble Lords, both speaking with great knowledge and experience, are entitled to rather more than the general reply which the noble Lord opposite gave them.
On the particular point of the uses made of the Customs Consolidated Act of 1876, and the interpretation which the noble Lord says was given to its terms by the Law Officers, it is somewhat surprising to a layman and I do not know whether
518
the interpretation would be accepted by all lawyers of eminence. If that interpretation is correct, a great deal of the discussion which took place from 1903 onwards on the subject of tariffs, and the controversies which took place as to the introduction of a tariff by means of a Parliamentary Statute, appear to be altogether unnecessary, because it is open to His Majesty's Government, apparently, to impose any restriction upon any goods of any kind proprio motu and without asking the leave of Parliament. I remember in the course of that controversy, probably about the year 1904, calling attention to a singular provision in one of the earlier Customs Consolidation Acts—I forget the precise year, but I think possibly it was 1865 or 1866—which appeared explicitly to give the right of prohibition in respect of any goods carried in foreign bottoms of any kind; that is to say, to the surprise of everybody it was found that we were still living under the Navigation Laws. I remember that at the time the late Duke of Devonshire, who replied for the Government, expressed on behalf of himself and his colleagues of the then Administration complete ignorance of the existence of that power—a power which if it does exist has, I think, never been used—but this power under the Act of 1876 is very far-reaching and even more amazing, and altogether apart from the question whether the particular application of the power is wise or unwise, I sincerely hope that the matter will be cleared up one way or the other, and cleared up, as one would hope, in the only way in which it can be finally cleared up—namely, by the decision of the highest possible Court on the interpretation of the words of that Statute. In the meantime there will be a great many people who, like the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord opposite, regard the whole position as profoundly unsatisfactory.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene were it not that this very morning, in the City, I had an illustration of the extreme inconvenience of these restrictions. Buying large quantities of stores for South American railroads which are British owned the storekeeper informed me that the effect of this constant uncertainty whether a licence can or cannot be granted is that orders will be placed, and must be placed, in other countries for absolutely necessary articles. It appears to me, therefore, that

519
it is of the utmost importance, not only theoretically but practically—there is plenty of room now in our shipping to take our stores there—to our foreign trade that these restrictions should be removed as soon as possible. This appears to me to be even more important than the legal question.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, it seems to me that what the country wants to know is, how soon and how rapidly are the Government going to remove these restrictions? I attend meetings where many of the working classes express their opinions, and during the last three months I have not attended one of these meetings where this question has not been raised. Some of the speakers declare that the reasons the restrictions are not taken off is that the Government themselves are making a profit out of them.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What article is it alleged that that refers to?
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I say that the speakers at these labour meetings absolutely accuse the Government of using these restrictions to make a profit out of the goods held back. I do not say there is any ground for that allegation. I have tried to argue against the accusation, but so long as the working classes have that idea the Government difficulties will tend to multiply, and the chances of industrial peace will remain far off.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble Marquess said just now that in his view the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have some ground for grievance against the noble Lord who spoke for the Government because he had not touched upon the general policy complained of in the speeches which they had made. I think that the terms of the Question on the Paper have entirely escaped the attention of the noble Marquess, for with his Parliamentary experience he would not have made that complaint if he had read the words in the Question to which the attention of my noble friend was directed. The Question is a narrow legal one—namely, under what authority do the Executive place an embargo on the importation of goods and commodities other than arms, ammunition and gunpowder. The noble Marquess knows perfectly well how these
520
questions are dealt with, and that a representative of every Department cannot possibly be in both Houses. Information is properly sought for from the Department in relation, and only in relation, to the Question asked. Even my noble friend does not carry in his head the whole of our legal science and the whole of our trading economy, and he was invited to-night, and was only invited, to open the particular drawer which contained either his legal knowledge or the legal knowledge of those upon whom he had to draw for an answer to this Question.
I do not propose to follow those speakers who have dealt with the legal question, nor do I propose to discuss the opinions which have apparently been given by the law officers. I adopt that course for this reason. It may well be that in a different capacity I may have to give a judicial decision upon them, and it would be at that moment that I shall probably reach a conclusion as to whether I am in agreement or not with the view of the law officers. It is sufficient to say at this stage that the matter is a debatable one, but your Lordships would be very slow to withhold the respect that is due to the opinion of the law officers. Even law officers of the greatest experience are not always right, and it is for the Court to consider and decide whether they are right or not in proper process. In regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, I confess that I do not precisely appreciate what is in his mind. He said it has been publicly stated—I really do not know by whom—that traders who have disobeyed this regulation have not been prosecuted. I do not know whether the noble Lord meant to imply that there were cases in which there has been deliberate defiance of these regulations, and in which prosecutions have not followed because the authorities were not sure of their ground. If the noble Lord did not mean that, I cannot quite see what led him to ask the question.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may be allowed to point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he is possibly laying too great stress on his experience of the House of Commons when he accuses me of having treated the noble Lord opposite somewhat unfairly in having expected a more detailed reply from him. If the noble and learned Lord had sat in this House as long as some of us, he would

521
know that it is a very frequent practice indeed for a debate of far greater dimensions than the present one to arise out of a simple Question placed on the Paper in such terms as those which my noble friend has used. The noble and learned Lord also may consider that the new practice of placing a star opposite some Questions is entirely due to the prevalence of this particular practice in the past. The presence of the star is intended to indicate that the Question will simply be asked by a noble Lord without a speech, but there is nothing to prevent all the other noble Lords in the House at the time, if they so desire, from carrying on the debate. I can assure the noble and Wined Lord that far oftener than not where a Question of this kind covering a particular subject is on the Paper it leads to a general discussion, and in the past has very often led to a full and complete reply from some Member of the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I venture to enter a caveat against one thing that has fallen from the noble Marquess to the effect that the introduction of our new starring system makes it quite unnecessary for noble Lords to give notice of the subjects they raise. In unstarred questions, that, I do not think, ought to be the ease. I think the Department is justified in requiring some notice.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have seldom received it in the past.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I know it has been the practice of your Lordships under our procedure and rules to cast your net very wide, but I would point out that, although noble Lords are entitled to make speeches as remote as they please from the actual words of the Notice, they must not blame the Minister who is answering on behalf of the Department if he cannot deal off-hand authoritatively with a number of most complicated questions of which he has not had notice. We have had a debate on the whole general principle of advisory committees, we have had a short review of bureaucracy since the time of Queen Elizabeth, we have had to deal with the whole policy of transhipment from ports oversea to other countries, currency and exchange have come up in three or four particulars, to say nothing of the question of trading with the enemy. Your Lordships
522
are entitled to ask all these questions, and fifty more, but I hope my noble friend will not be blamed if, without notice, he does not, desire to reply.
LORD EMMOTT: I thought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack challenged me on a point that he was referring to, and on which I felt bound to meet the challenge. What was in my mind was that I had heard it stated that certain traders had ignored these proclamations in a way which allowed the Government to prosecute them, and that the Government, feeling that their legal ground was very shaky, refused to do so. On the other hand, of course, it is obvious that goods must enter through the ports and through the hands of Customs officials, and unfortunately in this matter the Government have a chance of holding these goods, and it may rest with the trader to take proceedings against the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will give me a single case in which, after inquiry, he can say that he has formed the view that there ought to have been a prosecution and that there has not been a prosecution for some inexplicable reason, in order that I may ascertain whether that reason, which the noble Lord seems to think exists, in fact exists, I will see that inquiries are made. One word more in regard to what the noble Marquess said. It is quite true, as he reminded your Lordships, that I have been here a very short time. It is also true that I have been a close student of your Lordships' debates for, I suppose, twenty-five years, and I was very well aware of the practice to which the noble Marquess directed attention. The only comment I made was, not that your Lordships should not avail yourselves of your right to enlarge the debate as much as you think useful, but that you must not make complaint if a noble Lord does not come here prepared to deal with the specific points.
May I add one word upon the general question, because it is one of which I saw something when I was a Law Officer of the Crown, as I was for four years during the war. Everybody must agree that the system is a bad one. Every one must agree that it ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. There is great ground for controversy whether in relation to a specific article that moment has arrived, but no one can defend the system,

523
I will not say as a permanent element in our commercial life, but even as one that greatly outlasts the war. But the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, said with perfect truth that there was a great deal to be said during the war on behalf of the system. I will go further and say it was indispensable during the war, both from the point of view of killing industries and from at least two other points of view which, if time served, I could elaborate.
But the noble Lord himself said that, even when peace has come, there is a sort of period when these plants and machinery which we have harnessed to warlike purposes and which will necessarily require time before they can be re-established in their old channels, must be given some degree of protection. And I rather gathered that the noble Lord took the view that, in relation to that, this system, if widely and prudently employed, might be defended. If it relieves any apprehension, let me say that nobody is under any delusions at all on the point that this is a system which cannot be defended in relation to the claims of commercial men to get back to their own businesses in their own way at the earliest possible moment. Your Lordships may rely upon it that efforts are being made, and will continue to be made to get rid of it as soon as possible.
LORD PARMOOR: I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he has said as regards the hope of discontinuing what, I think, is a bad system, and I should like also to thank the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade for the answer he gave. I do not think I could have put the specific Question without showing the conditions which prevailed which made the Question necessary. I thought, when I saw him the other day, that he understood that that would be so; but whether that is so or not I make no complaint if the noble Lord felt unable to go into any of the wider points.

ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on recommitment), read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I understand that when a Bill has been before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House it is
524
customary to make a brief explanation as to what the Committee have done. They sat for five days and examined fourteen witnesses, who represented agricultural interests in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and qualified and registered veterinary surgeons, and unregistered veterinary surgeons; and I think they saw witnesses front almost every part of the kingdom who had any direct interest in this Bill. As the result of that evidence your Committee have produced the Bill which is now before the House, and in this Bill your Lordships will find that the Committee have now no longer made it compulsory that an anæsthetic should be used for the purposes of castration of an animal, whether horse or bovine, and also allow a caustic clam to be used. The only other great change in the Bill is that unregistered veterinary surgeons are now permitted to administer the anæsthetic, instead of its being confined solely to those who belong to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. There are other minor Amendments in the Schedules which, on the whole, have been tightened up, but those are of no great importance.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Offences.
1.—(1) If any person shall subject or cause or procure, or being the owner permit to be subjected, an animal to an operation contrary to the regulations contained in this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act
(2).—(a) A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the First, Second, or Third Schedules of this Act, respectively, unless the animal during the whole of the operation is under the influence of some general anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain.
(b) A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Schedules to this Act, respectively, unless during the whole of the operation it is under the influence of some general anæsthetic or some local anæsthetic being, in either case, of sufficient power to prevent it feeling pain.
The EARL OF CLANWILLIAM The EARL OF CLANWILLIAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), to insert "provided that in respect to the dishorning of cattle this regulation shall not come into force

525
for a period of two years from the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I do not wish it to be supposed that I am at all hostile to the principle of the Bill. On the contrary, I have hearty sympathy with any attempt made to prevent suffering to animals, but I feel that unless some such Amendment as I propose is included in this Bill very considerable hardship will be inflicted on the cattle trade and incidentally upon the consumers of meat. The cattle trade is one of the staple industries of Ireland, and anything that operates adversely to that trade cannot help reflecting on the meat supply of England. Your Lordships know the meat supply is in no too rosy condition, and if the meat supply is affected the price will be affected, and that must be the cause of serious anxiety to His Majesty's Government.
If this limit of two years is accepted, it will give time to those connected with the cattle trade and the farmers to make arrangements to comply with the aims and provisions of the Bill. This provision, as its stands without any time limit, is causing considerable alarm among the farmers and cattle dealers in Ireland. And, although I am speaking to-day without any particular brief from Ireland, I know from my connection with certain agricultural bodies in Ireland that it is viewed with anxiety, and doubtless, had they known that I was going to move this Amendment they might have asked me to say something on their behalf.
The reasons why cattle are dis-horned are various, and I should like to refer to one or two. The first is that cattle when dis-horned do much better when tamed out to grass; they do not gore or worry each other. Another reason is that when they are shipped from Ireland to Scotland and England they are very crowded on the boat, and once the boat has started, although the cattle may at first have been standing side by side with their heads in the same direction, they soon move about and get all over the place, with the result that if there is any sea running and the ship pitches and rolls the goring and cruelty and pain thereby inflicted is considerable, as is also, incidentally, the loss of condition to which the animals must be subjected while recovering from their wounds.
The chief aim of this Bill is to prevent cruelty to animals, but I should think it is
526
open to argument whether the pain inflicted by (dis-horning is any greater—the operation does not last very long—than the pain inflicted by the cattle on each other when being shipped to Scotland or England, a voyage of over ten hours, when a heavy sea is running. Farmers and dealers in Scotland and England very much prefer cattle which have been dis-horned, and in many cases they refuse to buy those who have not been so treated. Those are briefly the reasons. I think, perhaps, the chief consideration to-day is the possible dislocation and hampering of the cattle trade which may ensue unless this Amendment is agreed to. If the trade is hampered in any way a rise in the price of meat must inevitably follow.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert ("Provided that in respect to the dishorning of cattle this regulation shall not come into force for a period of two years front the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of (Clanwilliam.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: As I was a member of the committee to which reference has just been made, I think I can say that the noble Lord who has just sat down has accurately and fully represented the views of the Scottish farmers upon this question.
NOBLE LORDS: Irish.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: He has also represented the views of the Scottish farmers as well as those of the Irish, but not quite so accurately the views expressed by English farmers. The difference that struck me in the evidence upon this point was rather remarkable. I do not know the why or the wherefore, but apparently the Scottish animals—which are fed in what I think they call "courts"—behave much worse to each other than do the cattle in England. As a matter of fact, it is the commonest practice in all arable counties in England for the beasts to be turned into what are called yards, where they perform a double duty. One duty is to tread down the straw and make manure, and the other is to eat at the same time the oilcake—when it is available—to make manure for the crops. The Scottish animals behave so badly that the farmers have apparently taken the greatest umrbage at the idea that dis-horning should not be made compulsory. That is one side of the question. The other side is that there is no doubt

527
that dis-horning inflicts great cruelty upon the animals. Some of the evidence we had with regard to cattle coming from Ireland was deplorable in the extreme.
This is a Bill to endeavour to cope with pain and suffering in animals, and to reduce cruelty as much as possible. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will bear me out when I say that if you want to dis-horn animals with the least possible cruelty the way to do it is to treat them when they are young calves. A method described by many farmers, and by one or more witnesses before the Committee, was this: When the horns begin to what is called "bud," they should be treated with some preparation of potash which kills the horns. If that be true—I believe it is absolutely true, and it is a treatment well-known to farmers—it seems to me that by its adoption we can accomplish the double purpose of diminishing the cruelty brought about by dis-horning and at the same time ensure a bountiful supply of cattle. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl—who was the first to raise this question and to cause the appointment of this Committee—to one of the Schedules, where dis-horning is to be made obligatory before the calves have reached the age of three months. My own opinion is that it would be far better to make the age earlier and put it at, say, six weeks.
EARL STANHOPE: I trust that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. All the evidence before our committee was strongly against its being accepted. I myself at one time was rather in favour of the Amendment for a reason which was not given by the noble Lord—that is to say, I was afraid that if this Act came into operation at once with regard to dishorning it might be disregarded and, therefore, become ineffective. I have, however, changed my view, and I think that it should come into operation at once. May I give your Lordships three very short extracts from the evidence? One gentleman—who is very well known to many of your Lordships as a veterinary surgeon—talking about seeing the cattle being driven along a road in Ireland (where he had been only the week before he gave his evidence) says this—
"The man himself who was driving the cattle along said it was brutal the way it had been done. Their horns were raw, bleeding, and putred, and
528
pus was coming from them. They were being put on the ship at Belfast."
Another gentleman, a big farmer in Scotland, said—
"The horns remain tender at the end for about six weeks and not more."
A well-known veterinary surgeon from Ireland says—
"The after-effects, and not only the actual operation at the time, are painful. The animals evince intense pain especially when the saw is used; they roar and struggle; and there is a considerable amount of hæmorrhage"
Then he was asked whether there was suppuration afterwards as well as hæmorrhage, and his reply was, "Yes; frequently afterwards the wound becomes septic." It is not only that it is a painful operation to cut the horn, but there is a considerable amount of pain afterwards. There are nerves which run more than half way up the horn of the cattle, and when you cut through the horn of course you cut through the nerves. One of those who were in favour of this operation being allowed without an anæsthetic said it was exactly the same as having one's nail torn out. That does not sound a very pleasant thing to do. I therefore trust your Lordships will insist that the dis-horning of cattle—which by the way is illegal in England—should not be allowed to be done in Ireland and Scotland except under an anæsthetic.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope you will not allow this Amendment to pass. I have seen cattle in Ireland in a most disgraceful state in consequence of this dis-horning. You cannot imagine anything so cruel. They stand together with their heads down, bleeding and suffering dreadful pain. I hope that such things will not be allowed to go on for another two years. As Lord Chaplain said, it is quite easy to do it. I do it myself to my own calves. If you use caustic potash or caustic and put it on these buds, as they are called—the growing horns—the whole matter is done away with. They do not grow horns and they are hornless cattle, and thus the difficulty is overcome. As to allowing this to go on for two years more, I am very strongly against it and I am sure there are many other people who will agree with me.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: If this Amendment is not adopted, then I fear the cattle trade may be somewhat dislocated, in which case you will certainly

529
force up the price of meat. There is nobody here who would put up the price of meat, but possibly there may be in another place, and the evidence may not be impartial in opposition withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers of Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
3.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, by order made subject to the provisions of this section, add any other operation to the operations specified in any schedule to this Act, and any operation so added shall be deemed to be an operation specified in that schedule, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may also by order made as aforesaid, extend any provision of this Act to any domestic animal to which it does not at the time apply, with such modifications or additions as may appear to that Board to be necessary. The Board may, by order made subject to the provisions of this section, declare any substance to be a suitable general anæsthetic or a suitable local anæsthetic for the purposes of this Act, and any substance so declared shall be deemed to be a general anæsthetie or local anæsthetic, as the case may be, of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain if properly applied.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), after "operation specified in that schedule," to insert "and may transfer an operation from one schedule to another." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is that the Board of Agriculture shall have the power to transfer an operation from, say, Schedule 1 to Schedule 4. Take, for instance, the operation of laparotomy. We had a certain amount of evidence that laparotomy is better done under a local anæsthetic than under a general anæsthetic. That may eventually become the general view of the veterinary profession, in which case it may be necessary to transfer that operation from Schedule 1 to Schedule 4. Under the Bill as it stands that is impossible, and it would be necessary to pass a new Act of Parliament. It is an Amendment with which the rest of the Committee on which I served did not entirely agree, but the representative from the Board of Agriculture was in favour of it.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 8, after ("Schedule") insert ("and may transfer an operation from one Schedule to another").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I understand that the Board of Agriculture takes no objection to the noble Earl's suggestion.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am afraid I do not agree with my noble friend, and I think I can give some reasons with regard to the Bill itself which will show that it will upset the whole work of the Committee on the Bill if this were carried. The noble Earl opposite, who said that the Board of Agriculture had agreed, will observe that sub-section (2) (a) of Clause 1 reads as follows—
"A horse, a dog, a cat, or a bovine shall not be subjected to any operation specified in the First, Second, or Third Schedules of this Act, respectively, unless the animal during the whole of the operation is under the influence of some general anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain."
That means, of course, chloroform, or something that would make the animal insensible, and involves the casting of the animal.
I must ask you now to turn for a moment to the Fourth Schedule which deals with horses. Docking of the tail of a horse is one of the operations referred to there. I do not quite know how far this would affect the word "respectively." This has been done since the Committee met, the last time, and I was not aware of it. I apprehend, however, and I have been advised this afternoon by a very competent draftsman, that the word "respectively" refers to the different schedules. I will give the heading of all the schedules. The first refers to horses, the second to dogs and cats, the third to bovines, the fourth to horses, the fifth to dogs and cats, and the sixth to bovines. If I take the Fourth Schedule, and take one of the operations referred to—namely, docking of the tail—that would necessitate casting the horse on every occasion. He would always have to be subjected to a general anæsthetic, which is chloroform. I think this would cause enormous inconvenience. Unless I misread the effect of the Amendment, you would certainly have all the Hackney Associations in the kingdom up in arms. You would have the people who hunt in wet countries, where it is undesirable to have horses with long tails because of the mud and dirt and the filth and discomfort to themselves owing to carrying a ton weight some days, complaining, and generally speaking

531
I think it would be a mistake if this Amendment was accepted. I am also somewhat apprehensive that it would upset the working of the whole of the Bill as it is at present framed. It would entirely do away with the effect of the word "repectively" which is used in the two clauses, and I think we should get into great trouble there in connection with the Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: As the Bill stands now, a general anæsthetic is not necessary. What the noble Viscount is suggesting to your Lordships is that the Board of Agriculture will take it into their heads suddenly to forbid docking except under a general anæsthetic. I do not know that I am very often accused of having too great respect for Government Departments, but I think that to accuse the Board of Agriculture, or any other Government Department, of taking a line of that kind is really rather absurd. No Government Department would do a thing of that kind. The uproar in the country, to start with, would prevent their doing it. Beyond that, it is contrary to all common sense, and I do not think for one moment the Board of Agriculture would consider doing such a thing. I really do not see why the noble Viscount is so keen about the docking of horses' tails. I cannot believe that he can do it himself, because I am told it is against the law of the land.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not wish to say anything against the Board of Agriculture, except that I confess, in regard to all matters connected with horses, I have the very smallest opinion of their judgment and knowledge. I will give you a very good reason for that. When the present National Stud was offered to the Government for their acceptance as a gift to the nation, the then Board of Agriculture took two whole months before they could make up their minds and decide as to whether the offer ought to be accepted or not. It was only accepted by a Cabinet Committee at eight o'clock on the night before the sale was published at Newmarket. Nearly all the stud would have gone either to the Argentine or the United States of America and would have been an immense loss to this country. That was done under the Board of Agriculture. I will not say anything more upon that point. The first clause insists on a general anæsthetic for any operation, and I do not know that,
532
under pressure, the Board of Agriculture would not very likely give, way to this and put "docking" into the first Schedule instead of the one which it is in now. At all events, I do not approve of giving the wide powers suggested this afternoon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
BOVINES.
1. Ovariotomy.
2. Operations for actinomycosis.
3. Laparotomy.
4. Amputation of penis, mamma, uterus.
5. Dishorning cattle over three months old.
LORD SYDENHAM: With regard to Schedule 3, might I ask one question of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill? Is it a fact that a pig or a lamb is a bovine, or is it a fact that both are not included in the beneficent provisions of the Bill?
EARL STANHOPE: I understand that neither pigs nor sheep come under the operation of the Bill at all.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5:
DOGS AND CATS.
1. Enucleation of the eyeball.
2. Operation for umbilical hernia.
3. Urethrotomy.
4. Docking of the tail.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE moved, after "tail" to insert "and clipping or rounding of ears." The noble Lord said: I put forward this Amendment because I think it is a necessary corollary of the provision in the Bill which requires a local anæsthetic to be administered in the case of docking the tail of a dog. If it is right, as we think it is, that a local anæsthetic should be administered when docking the tail of a dog, then your Lordships will agree with me that it is quite as desirable or necessary, if you are going to clip or round a dog's ears, that a local anæsthetic should be used. It is even more necessary, because what I particularly refer to is the rounding of a foxhound's ears, of which I have had some experience, though not so

533
much as the noble Viscount on the front bench.
If you want shorten the tail of a fox terrier which, in my humble opinion, is unnecessary and undesirable, for several reasons—it can be done at a very early age, but the practice of rounding a hound's ears is not carried out until the puppy is nine months or a year old. At that age it is more painful than if it is carried out in extreme youth. I am not now going into a discussion on the merits of rounding a hound's ears, except to say that, having rounded the ears of the Warwickshire hounds for a good many years, I gave it up about five years ago because I thought it was unnecessarily cruel. I know there are two opinions about that. It is said that if you round the hound's ears you save them, in some countries, from tearing themselves in the brambles. I believe the noble Viscount. Lord Chaplin, holds that view.
All I can say is that in our country, where the brambles are perhaps not so thick as they are in the country to which he may refer, we have not had that experience and I have come to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the practice is unnecessary. But that is really by the way. This Amendment, which I hope your Lordships will accept, will not prevent anybody from rounding a hound's ears or clipping the ears of a dog, if it is thought necessary to do so, though I think it is barbarous. It will only compel the use of a local anæsthetic for the purpose, so that the main object of the Bill—that of saving pain to dumb animals—will be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, page 5, line 15, after ("tail") insert ("and clipping or rounding of ears").—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I hope the noble Lord will not persevere in the Amendment, which I look upon as entirely unnecessary. When the Bill was before the Committee on which I had the honour to serve, this subject was never brought up nor was any witness asked any question upon it. Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment refers to two operations—one, clipping; the other, rounding of ears. I take "clipping" to refer to a very old-fashioned practice of clipping a terrier's ears. For many years that has been illegal and it is illegal at this moment, so I do
534
not think it matters very much about that. It seems to be quite unnecessary. As to the rounding of foxhounds' ears I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is quite unnecessary that that should be done under an anæsthetic. I yield to nobody in my horror of unnecessary cruelty, but this operation is performed in a moment.
The noble Lord says that his object is to prevent an animal suffering pain. The animals suffers, if he does suffer pain at all in the operation, only momentarily. No doubt it suffers afterwards when going about with sore ears, but that is not obviated by any anæsthetic. The operation is not like the old operation of clipping a terrier's ears, which was done with a pair of scissors and was no doubt painful. Rounding of ears is done with a rounding iron, which is half-circular and is put round the end of the ear to cut off part of it and make the ear actually round. That is done with a sharp instrument placed on the hound's ear and pressure is put upon the instrument by a blow with a wooden hammer, and the piece of the ear which is not required, disappears altogether. The dog goes away with his ears very sore, no doubt, but the pain of the operation is momentary. Anybody who knows anything about it will allow that. The object of the Amendment is supposed to be to save pain, but the dog must suffer pain after the operation is performed. The pain will last for a day or two and it will be very disagreeable indeed, but the operation itself is so quickly done that I think it is almost painless. If such an Amendment is carried I think logically you should have fresh legislation to prevent babies being vaccinated without anæsthetics or ladies having their ears pierced without anæstheties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I venture to ask one question of the noble Lord for purposes of information. I have no desire to enter into the controversy about rounding a hound's ears, although I was interested to hear the view put forward by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who has so much experience. My impression was that the ears of hounds were always rounded. The question I wanted to ask was this, whether in the case of these particular operations there exists any local anæsthetic which can be profitably applied. Cocaine has been mentioned, but it is useless to apply cocaine on muscular tissue, and I

535
greatly question whether for operations of this kind there exists a local anæsthetic of any kind which may be regarded as really preventive of pain.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: The noble Marquess asks whether there is any local anæsthetic which can be effectively applied when rounding a hound's ears. I imagine there is, because the information obtained from the veterinary experts who were called was that there was an anæsthetic, I have forgotten the name, which could be successfully applied to docking horses' tails, and I do not see why the same anæsthetic could not be applied when rounding a hound's ears. The chief pain when cutting an animal is when the outer skin is penetrated. That was the whole drift of the evidence, and we also know it is the case from our own personal experience. The noble Marquess also asks whether the ears of fox-hounds are all rounded now. All I can say is that there is an increasing number of Masters of Fox Hounds who are not rounding the ears of their packs.
VISCOUNT VALENTIA: Nearly all.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I could name several celebrated packs of hounds—the Duke of Rutland's, the War-wicks and others—but I have no objection to making full inquiries on the matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Valentia, said that we obtained no expert witnesses with regard to this. Of course not. I was the chairman of this Committee and I know more about these things than anybody else, with the exception of the noble Viscount beside me and Viscount Valentia, both of whom have packs of hounds and have rounded their ears as my father and grandfather did. But that does not necessarily prove they are in the right. All I am asking is that when this operation is performed we shall conform to the general principle of the Bill by causing a local anæsthetic to be used.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in Schedule 5, after "Docking of the tail,' to insert "of animals over six months old." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment because the evidence which was given by expert witnesses was that it would be less painful to perform this operation on
536
animals under six months than on animals over six months old. Animals under six months feel pain less than an animal which is more than six months old.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, page 5, line 15, after ("tail") insert ("of animals over six months old").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
Amendments made by the Select Committee agreed to.

EXPRESS TRAIN SERVICES.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the express passenger train leaving St. Pancras at 8.50 a.m. arrives at Carlisle at 4.18 p.m., exactly one minute after the Caledonian express leaves Carlisle for Stirling, Perth, and Aberdeen; whether this failure of connection is due to directions from the Railway Executive Committee; and whether the Board of Trade will do anything to make this valuable connection available to travellers from the important populous districts served by the Midland Railway.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, replies from the Caledonian and Midland Railway Companies on the points raised have been received to-day, and I shall be glad to show copies of them to my noble friend. It will be seen that both companies say that they cannot, in existing circumstances, alter the timing of their respective trains so as to allow passengers by the 8.50 a.m. train from St. Pancras to make a connection with the Caledonian train leaving Carlisle for Stirling, Perth and Aberdeen at 4.17 p.m.
As regards the second paragraph of the question, it will be seen from the railway companies' replies that the withdrawal of this pre-war facility was due to conditions brought about by the war, and while these conditions made it necessary for the Railway Executive Committee to give general instructions for the curtailment of train services throughout the country and to settle the principles governing the allocation of through traffic, the details of timetables are arranged by the railway com

537
panies themselves. Unfortunately difficulties of the nature of those indicated in the letters still exist, and both the Board of Trade and the Railway Executive Committee must necessarily leave questions of the restoration or extension of facilities largely to the decision of the individual railway companies. I trust that the noble Lord, who I understand is a railway director, will assist in the removal of these difficulties.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of joining in the welcome which has been accorded to this Bill in your Lordships' House, and to associate myself with everything the Lord Chancellor said as to the necessity of facing the housing conditions in Scotland. I am in hearty agreement with the Report of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland as to the necessity for immediate and drastic reform, but while welcoming the arrival of the Bill I must at the same time deplore certain of its provisions.
It will probably be admitted by your Lordships that on three lines this Bill is open to attack. Firstly, it imposes practically the whole of the re-housing in Scotland as a duty upon the local authorities; in the second place rural housing is not faced by the Bill, and certain sections of rural housing, such as crofter rural housing, is even by the Government admitted not to be dealt with by the Bill. The third point of criticism is on the question of occupying ownership, and especially the question of the possibility of co-partnership. I would like just to say a word or two on these three points. Firstly, on the question of local authority control. I do not think it can be too often insisted upon that the first and most important thing in the matter of housing in Scotland is the actual building of houses. To confine the whole action to the action of local authorities is to handicap yourselves in arriving at the state of things which we all desire. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware
538
that only 3 per cent. of the houses in Scotland have been built by public authorities in the last thirty years. The total number of houses built has been over a million, and the total number built by local authorities is under 3,500, of which 2,100 have been built in Glasgow, and only some 1,400 in the rest of Scotland. Therefore to impose upon an authority so inexperienced as the local authority the duty of building 250,000 houses, which is the number required in Scotland, seems to be giving to bodies without the necessary experience work which is quite outside their powers.
I say that you practically thrust the whole burden of building houses upon local authorities by this Bill. I say this because anybody who has followed the history of building in Scotland at all closely, is well aware of the steep gradations which exist in the figures as to the number of houses built in one year and another. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that there was practically a drop of 34 per cent. in the numbers of the building trade in Scotland between 1901 and 1911. In the City of Glasgow before the war there were built houses at the rate of 5,300 a year. In 1910 the number had gone down as low as 280, and in 1911 to 200. Without going too far into the political side of the question, a great many of your Lordships believe that this absolute failure in house building in the period 1910–11 was in large degree due to a measure which we know well in this House. It is therefore a fair argument that housing is apt to be affected by legislation, and experience shows that it is directly affected by the action of local authorities who compete on what is considered to be unfair terms with the private builder.
I do not wish to pursue this matter too far, but I do wish to insist upon the point that if you wish to get houses built in the numbers which are required in Scotland, the Government are acting on a wrong policy in adopting a policy which will make the local authorities the only house builders. We have just had a sporting argument on the subject of fox hounds. I say it would be exactly similar if Lord Willoughby de Broke were, before riding at one of the stiffest fences in Warwickshire, to tie up three of his horse's legs. The Government is by its action and its failure to recognise private as well

539
as corporate action handicapping itself enormously in facing this problem, which is one of the most difficult and important questions which have to be faced.
Then as regards rural housing. Your Lordships have admitted that this Bill does not touch the crofter housing question at all. I submit that it barely touches the agricultural servant's question either. I would like just for a moment to recall to your Lordships what has happened over this question of rural housing both in the country and in another place. Members of the House of Commons showed the very greatest dissatisfaction with the Bill in its connection with rural housing. Conferences of various bodies were called, and practically at the demand of the Grand Committee the Secretary for Scotland attended a meeting in Edinburgh at which the whole of the county councils, the three Government Departments concerned, farmers, and representatives of all the country pursuits, were represented, and at which a practically unanimous resolution was passed, declaring that rural housing was not faced by the Bill and could not be faced unless the question of grants were considered.
It is very clear why rural housing cannot be faced by local authorities. If one takes the question of rural authority housing to the last analysis, one must agree that housing by the local authority is housing for the employer who neither houses his employees himself nor pays them sufficient wages to allow them to house themselves. It is different when dealing with the towns. The labour there is not necessarily that of a single individual. Labour can move from one employer to another, and it is not seen that housing by the local authority is really a subvention to low wages or failure to meet housing obligations. This is not the case in the country. In the country each individual works—I am talking of rural housing—for a special employer. In the town, and also admittedly in some villages, you have that community of interest which arises through the advantage resulting from the whole level of housing being raised. Individuals can then pass from one better house to the next. In the country the question of the tied employee makes this impossible. Therefore, unsatisfactory as this Housing Bill is to English agriculture, it is still more unsatisfactory in Scotland, for there we
540
have practically universally the tied house system in agriculture.
The result is that a village which can be helped by the local authority only supplies a very minute portion of the houses required by those who work on the land. From the practical point of view, if one regards the question of whether these rural local authorities are going to improve the housing conditions, one is faced with this fact. In all directions it will obviously be necessary that there must be some driving power before you can get the necessary consideration and vote on the subject. In county councils where you have a division both of interests and of politics it is very difficult to see what can be done. Outside the agricultural labourer, who only takes a very small part in county council work, it is difficult to see exactly which class is going to give the necessary vote to get rural housing through. It will be very difficult for the landowner to vote houses for himself at the public expense, or to vote for houses for other proprietors who have not housed their farm servants properly. The farmer, on the other hand, will not see his way clear to vote for the landlord having houses at the State's expense. Again, it is difficult to see how the crofters, who represent so large a number of small holders, are going to be enthusiastic about voting houses which they are to pay for but of which, under the Bill, they are not going to have the least advantage. It is therefore difficult to see where the necessary driving power is to come from to get the rural housing question adequately faced. The unfortunate position in which any member of a county council would be who bad to put in motion either by direct or indirect action the machinery by which he himself would get some advantage out of the local grant can easily be realised.
My third line of criticism is in regard to the slight attention which has been given to the possibilities which underlie occupying ownership by co-partnership tenants. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that in England a Co-partnership Tenants' Society exists which in 1909 had only some £36,000 invested in land, and which by 1914 had an interest in land and houses that amounted to £1,500,000. I submit that if this question of housing had been faced on broad and comprehensive lines an opportunity would have been afforded for the men who have returned from abroad once more to

541
resume their occupations as workmen. Moreover, the Government had a great opportunity of doing something for those who wished to acquire houses and become occupying owners.
I have given your Lordships an example of the extent to which co-partnership tenancy has been worked in England, and I will now turn to Scotland. In Scotland we had even before the war several successful instances of co-partnership ownership. I need not point out what the advantages are to the country during a time such as we are likely to go through of having a number of returned soldiers on the land with the stability that is given by having a definite stake in the country. Had that been done it would have been a measure which, I am sure, would have had the greatest support from every class of the community. The high wages which are paid at present would have made the acquirement of a house much more possible than was the case in the past. I will give your Lordships an example from Scotland. In the town of Falkirk men acquired their own houses with wages which in those days only averaged something like 25 s. a week. Notwithstanding the rise in the price of building it would have been possible, had the Government faced this question in a broad and liberal way, to have very much increased occupying ownership. From the experience that I have gained by addressing meetings in Scotland on the subject I am quite satisfied that the demand for occupying ownership has increased and is increasing, and if it had been faced adequately by the Government we should have had considerable results in that direction.
In conclusion, I would like to say that every well wisher of Scottish rural housing must regret this Bill as it stands to-day. I do not believe that you are going to make real progress in rural housing, and, from the remarks that one hears from time to time not only from Members of Parliament but also from the Government officials who have been travelling about the country, one feels that they have no more confidence than we have ourselves in the development of rural housing. I was informed to-day by one who is most likely to know that not 50 per cent. of the rural county councils in England had sent in schemes, and we have seen Ministers going about the country trying to "ginger up" the local authorities to do the work.
I admit it is essential that action should
542
be taken, but I think it is not so much that the local authority is on its trial but that this Bill is on its trial, and that it has been shown that the Government is not likely to face the rural housing problem. At the present time the lips of members of the Government are full of phrases such as "back to the land," but if this Bill is not a success in the rural areas (as I think we are bound to admit it is not likely to be) you are actually subsiding the towns at the expense of the country. You are voting these large sums of money, which are not going to be spent in the country because the method of spending that money is not suitable, and you are going to subsidise the building of more houses in the towns and increase the rate at which the people will flock from the country into the better houses in the towns.
Our position in this House is such that we are unable to offer any constructive Amendments which are of the least value. You have seen the treatment which our Amendments in the English Bill have received in another place. I am certainly not going to take the trouble to put down Amendments which I believe would help the working of the Act, because Parliamentary arrangements are such that they would be ruled out without consideration in another place. But I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider that as this Bill, drafted as it is, entirely fails to face the rural conditions, you should seriously consider the question of making more use of public utility societies than the Bill does. I would suggest that the Regulations of those societies should not form part of the Bill, but should be settled by the various executives, and that the Government should insist that these Regulations should be such as to allow those people who wish to build in the country to take advantage of the meagre opportunities which they have. Otherwise rural housing will not improve; it will get worse.
I am not going again to enlarge upon crofter housing which I discussed the other night, but I trust we shall receive something more definite from His Majesty's Government about crofter housing policy than we received front the noble Lord opposite. We have had experience in the past in the Highlands of these vague promises of reform in crofter conditions. But the existing crofter is not of the slightest interest to the politician—it is only the possible crofter who could be put into an

543
impossible deer forest where there is imaginary land on which he can settle, but on which, as a matter of fact, he does not want to settle, who is of the slightest interest to the politician. We had exactly the same proposition in the 1911 Bill, and, although £200,000 per annum was voted, I have proved absolutely right in the statement I made then that none of this money would be of any benefit to the existing crofter. And, in regard to this £2,500,000 which are going to be used under the Land Settlement Bill, unless the strictest instructions are given to the Government that the crofter housing question is to be faced on adequate lines that money will not be employed to put the houses of crofters on Government land into the same condition as prevails on the average privately owned estate in Scotland. I hope, therefore, the Government will consider, in view of the unfortunate position of the rural housing, those questions of the Regulations for public utility societies, and also the question of the crofters who are actually to-day on the soil.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I should like entirely to endorse everything that the noble Lord has said. He has represented the case well to your Lordships. Housing in Scotland is admittedly bad, and, although probably not by any means the whole of the shortage comes from the so-called "People's Budget" of 1909 that is the main reason why the housing in Scotland at present is so very bad. It has certainly turned out a Budget for which the people were made to suffer in lack of houses, and now the country has got to pay huge sums—probably three times what it would have cost to build these houses by private enterprise. I know, for instance, a certain case on my own estate in a large town where it was proposed by a society to have a small garden city. They were going to have a hundred acres for cottages, negotiations were well forward, the 1909 Act came in, and nothing more was heard of it. And there have been similar cases in many places.
My noble friend has pointed out the great danger to the rural districts. As your Lordships who have lived in or visited Scotland know, on farms in Scotland practically the whole of the farm servants' houses are situated in close proximity to the farm buildings, whereas in England the labourers live in the villages. That
544
is one reason why in this Bill it is almost impossible for the local authorities, even if they are willing to do so, to provide accommodation for farm servants. Numerous people throughout Scotland have considered how under this Bill assistance could be given to improve the conditions of the housing of the farm servants, and no one yet has come anywhere near a solution, and His Majesty's Government have not been able to give any light on that very serious question.
We have not only got the difficulty that money is going to be provided for the local authority, and practically the local authority only, for purposes of this kind, but, in addition, they have a prior call on all material. I know on my estate, where probably the housing is quite as good as on most others, we found it possible during the war to undertake a great deal of work with labour and materials, but in that case, where we did not expect or want any grant, there has been enormous difficulty in carrying it out because we were unable to obtain material, on which the local authorities had a prior claim. Under this Bill they have the sole claim.
It is no good in future years coming to the landowners of Scotland, as the Government probably will do, and saying "We want to put the people back on the land, and you have done nothing for them." At the present time it is impossible for landlords to do what they wish in providing the necessary accommodation, but when it comes to providing houses for any of these discharged and disabled soldiers it is even worse. I myself have had cases, as I daresay your Lordships have, of disabled soldiers who wanted a small amount of land for poultry or something of that kind. In Scotland there is some difficulty about the land which is chiefly under lease, but the real difficulty is housing. It is a perfect mockery to talk of "back to the land," and to tell these discharged and disabled soldiers that they are going to be well provided for, if at the same time conditions are made not only not to improve housing in rural areas but actually to make the matter more difficult than it has been in the past. There is a serious shortage of houses in Scotland.
Although I am afraid it is not possible under this Bill for your Lordships to make such alterations as will make the measure effective, I hope His Majesty's Government will look seriously into this question;

545
because if they do not I am sure that before long there will be not only great disappointment throughout the country but the people will feel that they have been deceived, and then there will be trouble. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has put down several Amendments to bring the Bill somewhat into line with the English Bill. I am glad he has done so. There are certain other Amendments which, perhaps, might be desirable, but I think, speaking generally, if the Government will accept Amendments to bring the Bill into line with the English Housing Bill there will not be much difficulty in the Committee stage. I trust that the Government will bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Lovat has said. I am sure that His Majesty's Government and your Lordships would like if possible to put the thing on a sound footing so that we may in reality have an opportunity of keeping the land in cultivation, employing as many people as possible on the land, and supplying small holdings to men who are either wholly or partially disabled
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Your Lordships will hardly think it convenient that I should attempt anything in the nature of a full reply to the elaborate speech made by Lord Lovat. I was glad to note that the noble Duke if not extravagant in his praise for the Bill at any rate was less pessimistic about it than was Lord Lovat.
LORD LOVAT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I should like to say that I welcome the Bill. I think it will solve a great many of our troubles in Scotland, although I believe it is open to the three objections to which I called attention.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rejoice to hear what the noble Lord says. If noble Lords when they found it necessary to involve us in their censure gave us at the same time such compensating refreshment, it would greatly relieve the tasks of Ministers. I am glad to hear what the noble Lord says, though I confess I did not gather that impression from his speech. The noble Duke adopts the same view. His conclusion is that if this Bill is brought into line with the English Bill as it left this House it is a measure which, if it does not make the full contribution he hoped for, at any rate makes a considerable contribution to this problem.
546
It must not be supposed that the Government in adopting this Bill did not give the deepest consideration to its tenour and to the alternative methods by which their object might have been attained. I am sure that my noble friend did not intend—when he referred to the mockery of saying "Back to the land"—that a serious effort has not been made. No one can say that the Government has not laboured ever since the Armistice in the preparation of these schemes, and the best expert help available has been consulted throughout. The Scottish Office contains many people who are highly experienced in these matters, and the Government have resorted also to the advice of many others on all these points. I can see what the noble Lord would have preferred. In the interests of what he called the "tied house system" he would have preferred the method to have been adopted of granting subventions on a large scale to Individuals instead of proceeding through the agency of the local authority. All I can say is that this matter was carefully considered but it was deliberately rejected. It would certainly not have recommended itself to the House of Commons; it was the clear view of the Government that the House of Commons would not have sanctioned such a course. The Cabinet itself, I say plainly, took an express decision upon this particular point, and, apart from the view taken of it in the House of Commons, they were opposed to it because they formed the deliberate opinion, after taking the best possible advice, that it was preferable to proceed through the local authority. The noble Lord, I may say in passing, was not content with mentioning his pessimism in regard to Scotland but he brought it across the border. In regard to what he said as to the number of schemes presented by local authorities in England, may I say that a far larger number have made their schemes than might have been expected. It must not be forgotten that a great deal of complicated work has had to be done.
I may, perhaps, deal with another observation made by the noble Lord. He said that he hoped there would be regulations under the public utility society provisions which would secure to him what he wanted. I also hope that there will be definitions under that branch of the Bill which will give him what he wants. In addition, I may inform him that this was one of the objects of the Government in

547
introducing that part of the Bill. I think that it is not only probable but certain that there will be regulations under this part of the Bill which will give great satisfaction to the noble Lord. May I also point out to him that Clause 19 says this with regard to loans—
"Where the owner of a house or building applies to the local authority of the district in which the house or building is situated for assistance for the purpose of carrying out works for the reconstruction, enlargement, or improvement of the house or building, and the authority are of opinion that after the works are carried out the house or building would be in all respects fit for habitation as a house or houses for the working classes, and that the circumstances of the district in regard to housing accommodation are such as to make it desirable that the works should be carried out, the authority may lend to the owner the whole or any part of such sum as may be necessary to defray the cost of the works and any costs, charges, or expenses incidental thereto.…"
The noble Earl will see that in subsection (4) of Clause 19 "owner" is defined as including "joint owner, fiar, feuar, and lessee under a lease recorded under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857." That gives considerable power. I think we must proceed to the Committee stage. Everybody knows that only by a detailed examination of the clauses in Committee shall we be in a position to consider how far some of these gloomy predictions of the noble Earl are well-founded. The noble Lord asked that the Government should make some further statement than was made by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, the other night. The noble Lord must not suppose that answers are given here without some care being taken about them. It was not possible to say more. I thought the noble Earl said a great deal. It is impossible, of course, for the Government to issue bulletins, at intervals of about three days, with reference to their views. The noble Lord must really take it that what was then said expressed the intention of the Government. I consider the noble Lord underrated the very genuine desire which was displayed in the speech of tie noble Earl to do something for a section of the population which the noble Lord has referred to. He returns to the charge and demands, after I think about three or four days, that a new statement should be made, which I think it is not possible to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord DENMAN in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to move that the House do now resume. We propose to take the Amendments to this Bill on Friday.
House resumed.

RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No.3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The amendment which I propose on this Clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Clause 9, page 5, line 29, leave out ("an") and insert ("a perpetual")—(Viscount peel.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duties of county councils with respect to sale or lease of land.
11.—(1) Land acquired by a county council under the principal Act, shall be sold or let by the council at the best price or sum that can reasonably be obtained, and where sold or let for small holdings be sold or let, except where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for any special reason otherwise direct, subject to a reservation of all minerals vested in the council.
(2) Where land is sold for small holdings or an option to purchase a small holding is given at any time before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, the sale or option shall only be made or given subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
(3) A council may give to the tenant of a small holding an option to purchase the holding on such terms as may be agreed and be consistent with the provision of this section, and on any such sale any increase of the value of the land due to improvements executed by and at the expense of the tenant shall not be taken into account in estimating the best price obtainable for the land.
(4) A council, when selling or letting a small holding at any time before the expiration of two years after the passing of this Act, shall give preference to suitable men who have served at any time in the forces of the Crown and to suitable women who are certified by the Board to have been engaged in whole-time employment oil agricultural work for a period of not less than six months during the present war.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY (on behalf of LORD BLEDISLOE)THE EARL OF MALMESBURY (on behalf of LORD BLEDISLOE) moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert the following new subsection:
"(3).—(a) Subject to the approval of the Baird of Agriculture and Fisheries, a tenant of a small holding shall have the option at any time during his tenancy of purchasing his holding from the Council, and, if the tenant so desires, the purchase money shall be paid by means of a purchase annuity which shall be fixed by the Treasury, and the annuity shall be calculated at the lowest rate winch will, in the opinion of the Treasury, secure the Treasury against loss.
(b)The purchase annuity shall be paid until the whole of the advance is ascertained, in a manner prescribed by the Treasury, to have been paid, and the terms of purchase shall also include such other terms as are not inconsistent with this section.
"(c)On any purchase under this section, any increase of the value of the land due to improvements executed by and at the expense of the tenant shall not be taken into account in fixing the purchase money payable by the purchaser."
The noble Earl said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place in the House to-day. The point is really this, that the tenant of a small holding shall have the option to purchase the holding, and be able to do so by a terminable annuity on the security of the land. The history of the Amendment is this. A proposal of the Agricultural group in the House of Commons was discussed in the Standing Committee, and eventually came before the House of Commons on Report stage. During all those stages of the Bill an undertaking was given that this Amendment should be favourably considered, and on the Report stage Sir Arthur Boseawen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, said he would carefully consider it with the President of the Board in order to see whether it could be inserted in another place. I think it is a much more
550
desirable way of enabling soldiers and sailors to settle on the land than that proposed by the Bill.
It is extremely difficult to legislate by reference, and this Bill refers to the principal Act of 1908. Under the Act of 1908, I believe I am right, the tenant can exercise his option of purchase provided he deposits one-fifth of the purchase value. Under this Bill the county council may, or may not, grant him the right to purchase, but at the present moment it is entirely with the county council to say whether or not he may purchase his holding. What I desire to do—I notice the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has an Amendment down on time Paper—is that in case the Board of Agriculture approve of the application, and the Treasury makes favourable arrangements, the tenant may purchase his holding and do so by means of a terminable annuity.
May I call attention to a passage in the Preface which the President of the Board of Agriculture penned to a book on "Occupying Ownership of Land." He wrote—
"Where the State lends to a public body or an individual the risk is the same. If it is reasonably safe to lend to a public body it is reasonably safe to lend to the individual. The risk is slight. If the first two yearly instalments are paid the risk is infinitesimal, and the land remains as security throughout the, continuance of the loan. Whether an owner or tenant will produce most from the land is a question which depends more than anything else on the character of the individual, but given two men of similar disposition experience proves that the strongest incentive to increase of output is that of ownership."
That is the opinion of Lord Ernle, and I submit it is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. It is not one which comes solely from the brain of my noble friend or myself. This Amendment has behind it the whole weight of the Rural League. Those who know the work of the Rural League and its close connection with those who are desirous of becoming small owners, will know that it represents a very representative body of opinion in this country. It was only very recently that I had an interview with Sir John Green, the very able Secretary of the Rural League, and referring to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount opposite—the Government Amendment—he said that he did not consider that it really , the case, as there was no effectual option.
I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I hope that the Government will give

551
this very careful consideration. I confess I regret the fact that the advantage of this Bill should not have been limited to those who served their country overseas. I understood that the noble Viscount the other day referred to the fact that munition workers were included in the advantage; to be obtained from the Bill. I can only say that I rather regret that, because the greater the number of individuals who require holdings the more difficult will it be to come to terms, and I understood that most of the munition workers were skilled hands in other trades. If this is not so, then many of them should have served as soldiers, and therefore would be far better employed in other things than agriculture. I hope I have been able, on behalf of Lord Bledisloe, to make the case fairly clear for this Amendment, because it is difficult always to amend a Bill which deals with this subject by reference; but I trust I have been able to make the matter sufficiently clear. Under the old Act of 1908, I believe I am right in saying that if a tenant deposits one-fifth of the purchase money he is entitled to acquire the ownership of the holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, that is not so.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I have in mind a case of which I will give the noble Viscount particulars, in which a small holder in the county of Cambridgeshire leased fifty acres from the County Council, and he is doing fairly well. He wanted to put down one-fifth of the purchase money and to purchase the small holding under the Act of 1908, but the council would not entertain the application. Under the Act the council may sell. There is no mandatory power, and it is feared that precisely the same thing would happen under this Bill unless the right is given. The point which I wish to make, and which those who represent the case to me wish to make, is that if, under those circumstances, the tenant is unable to purchase the holding, under this Bill and under existing conditions the ex-soldier would be unable to purchase his holding, and I hope the noble Viscount on behalf of the Government will be able to meet the Amendment
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 4 to 10, leave out subsection and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it will be clear to my noble friend that I cannot accept this Amendment. It gives an
552
absolute right to any of these small holders to purchase his small holding. His Majesty's Government of course do not object to, but in fact they favour, the purchase of holdings, but there must be some discretion left to the county councils as landlords. They could not allow any particular holding to be picked out and purchased without reference to the rest of the property, and very many of these estates could be purchased without having regard to the rest of the property. Moreover I think that my noble friend also will see that it would militate very much against the whole, purpose of the Bill, because if any small holder, the moment that he became a tenant, had this absolute right of purchase—and purchase also on very easy terms—it is quite clear that the county council would have to exercise a much severer judgment over the man if he were their tenant than if he were to purchase, because their whole security would rest on the character of the man and his capacity for keeping the farm in good cultivation, and they would think twice. before they put a man in if the moment they put him in he had the absolute right of purchase. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. I know that this is to be subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture is not nearly in such a good position as the county council for judging whether the man himself is the sort of man who can be a purchaser, and it would be a bad thing to so interfere with the discretion of the county councils in this matter as that they should be over-ridden by the Board of Agriculture. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be content to leave the discretion in the hands of the county council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry that I did not hear the opening remarks of my noble friend, but I presume we are on the Amendment in the name of Lord Bledisloe and which my noble friend Lord Malmesbury has moved. I regard this as an Amendment of the greatest possible importance. It is an Amendment for the first time definitely to embody in an Act of Parliament the right of a small holder, on fair terms, to acqure the freehold of the land which he starts, perhaps as a tenant. This has been a subject of considerable contention between the two main parties in the State for a good many years past. When Lord Lincolnshire (then Lord Car-

553
rington) was President of the Board of Agriculture he, believed almost. exclusively in the small holder remaining a tenant of the county council, and he did nothing to facilitate the small holder becoming an owner. The Act as it exists at present, although it includes a certain provision designed to enable the small holder to become owner, has been practically useless, because the terms of the Act, according to my recollection, require the small holder to put down such a sum of money in purchase of the land as is usually quite out of his power.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have put down an Amendment to assist. that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am aware of the Amendment, but I venture to think that it does not go far enough. Speaking to the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, I first of all want to make the general point that it is immensely in the interests of the nation that as many men its possible who are small holders should become owners of the land they cultivate. You have only to point to the example of foreign countries, particularly France, to see what an immense element of stability that right introduces into the social system of the nation. Therefore on general grounds I cannot too strongly express my adhesion to the policy of giving the small holder on easy terms, through an annuity, the right to become the owner of the land that he tills. I am astonished that His Majesty's Government should put any difficulties in the way of the fulfilment of this policy. When you consider that two-thirds of the land of Ireland has been transferred to the Irish tenants by an exactly analagous process it does seem a strange thing that such a national Government as that which we at present possess should feet any difficulty in giving corresponding facilities to that comparatively small class of the population who are small holders under the county councils.
When you pass from the general considerations to the case of the sailors and soldiers who have served I contend that the case is stronger still. Here are men who, as we are told by the Board of Agriculture, are claiming in large numbers to become small holders. If they go to Canada or Australia or New Zealand what is offered to them? Not what the Government Bill offers them—practically a permanent tenancy with the opportunity of
554
becoming a freeholder under rather onerous conditions, but the certain opportunity within a short time of becoming a freeholder. It will not bear examination that the only part of the Empire in which these men who have fought for the Empire, and whose brothers have died for the Empire, are not to have an easy opportunity of becoming freeholders should be their own native land. 'That is my see, aid point.
Now I come to the objection which my noble friend raised—the difficulties of administration by the county council. I say as a past President of the Board of Agriculture that these difficulties are imaginary. I say it not only as a past President of the Board of Agriculture but as one who on his own county council has taken an interest in this matter, and knows how it. Stands. You have only got to go to the Report of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee. of the Committee on Reconstruction, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, to see the whole of this question dealt with and worked out, in detail, and there is not a single one of the arguments that my noble friend put forward in the closing part of his speech that is not answered in advance by that Report.
Not only that, but in the Report you will find an actual example of how this thing can be done, and has been done. The County Council of Bedfordshire, acting under the law which governs its proceedings, established on part of the estate of the Duke of Bedford a colony of small holders, tenants according to the Small Holdings Act. On the adjoining farm the Duke of Bedford of his own action established a colony of small holders under precisely similar conditions, but with the power for those small holders to acquire the freehold whenever they liked. There was no obligation on the whole of them to buy; all this question of the difficulties of administration has been proved by the experience of the Bedford estate to be absolutely imaginary. And side by side at the present time you will find one estate on one farm, owned by the County Council of Bedfordshire, in which nobody has any chance whatever of becoming the owner of the land he tills, and on the next farm you will find the colony established by the Duke of Bedford where at the present moment every single man is either a freeholder or on the way to becoming a freeholder.
In these circumetances I hope that my noble friend will insist on this Amendment.

555
In the House of Commons it met with very great sympathy. The Government did not take up as resolute an attitude of opposition as I understand from the closing remarks of my noble friend he has taken up on this occasion; and, as I believe a very great principle is involved in this Amendment I sincerely hope that your Lordships will support it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are two observations that I think I ought to make in reply to what my noble friend has said. He was contrasting the property of the Duke of Bedford and the small holdings of the Bedfordshire County Council. I have very great respect for the County Council of Bedfordshire, and surely my noble friend very much over-stated the case when he said that on that neighbouring estate not one of these small holders had the least chance of acquiring his freehold. On the contrary; it is absolutely within the competence of the county council to sell these small holdings to their tenants.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Only on the conditions of the Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that in a minute. But what my noble friend Lord Malmesbury is asking is to put it out of the power of the county council for any reason to refuse to sell those small holdings. My noble friend laid very great stress on the fact that under the Act before they purchase their holding they had to deposit one-fifth of the purchase money. If I may, I will refer to an Amendment that I have later on the Paper under which the county councils are allowed to modify or to suspend altogether the operation of the one-fifth deposit. You could not very well have the purchase of a small holding made more easy than to say that the county council has the power not to require at all the deposit of this one-fifth or of any part of the 20 per cent to be deposited before the purchase. The whole could be repaid over the annuity, and the annuity is extended from fifty to sixty years. Therefore it is not just to say that the Government have not made any effort to make it more easy for the small holder, whoever he may he, to acquire his holding.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree that my noble friend's proposal is an improvement on the present law, but in my humble judgment it does not go far enough. I have been a member of a county council
556
ever since county councils existed, and, like my noble friend, I have a great respect and admiration for the way they do their work. But I am much more concerned in this matter for the men on the land than I am for the county council, and I think it is not too much to ask for the men who have fought for their country that they should have the right, irrespective of the wish of the county council, to own their land if they desire. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will go to a Division.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: In reply to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, may I say that I entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Selborne with regard to the importance of increasing the number of freeholders? I remember well that in the year 1911 I introduced into this House a small Land Purchase Bill in which a small sum was involved compared with the sums now spent by His Majesty's Government. That Bill was not favourably received by the Administration then in office because the Tenant Bill (as we called it) of 1908 had recently been introduced.
With regard to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peel to the effect that the county councils would have to be very much more severe in their test, surely that is exactly what we want. We do not want to put undesirable men on the land; we want to apply the severest tests of a knowledge of agriculture before we put them there. There is another point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Selborne which I think is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment—namely, the case of Ireland. Why have all these advantages been given to the Irish, who as a unit of the United Kingdom have not taken on their full responsibilities as to military service, when they are denied to those here who have served their country well in these years of stress? Finally, like my noble friend Lord Selborne I have been a member of a county council for a great many years. I am on the Small Holdings Committee of that county council, and I can assure your Lordships that the number of applications we receive from men who are thoroughly qualified to become small holders is very large. Might I say, in conclusion, that with regard to the Rural League, which framed this Amendment in the first instance I believe, there are now over 1,000 applications alone for small holdings by ex-soldiers now waiting, which cannot possibly be satisfied.
On Question, whether the subsection proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?—
The voting being equal, the Amendment (according to ancient, rule) was not made.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) A council may by order in relation to sales or options for sale of small holdings provided by the council which are made or given while the order is in force, modify or suspend the operation of subsection (3) of section eleven of the principal Act (which requires the payment on completion of the purchase of a small holding of not lees than one-fifth of the purchase money) and extend the term within which the purchase money is required by subsection (5) of that section to be repaid, but so that the term shall not exceed sixty years. Provided that any order Wade under this subsection before the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and twenty-six, shall require the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Treasury."
The noble Viscount, said: This is the Amendment to which I have already referred, and I understand your Lordships are prepared to accept it at once. It is to enable a county council to do away with, suspend or modify that, particular provision under which, if the small holder wishes to purchase his land, he must pay one-fifth of the purchase money as a deposit. This, of course, makes it far easier for him to purchase the land. Moreover, the period of fifty years is extended to sixty years, thereby making the repayment instalments smaller. During the first seven years, in which the particular financial arrangement that I explained on the Second Reading still holds, this arrangement must be subject to the Board of Agriculture.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Shandon, L.

Jersey, E.

Chalmers, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Onslow, E.

Emmott, L.

Wittenham, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wyfold, L.

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Ludlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Wicklow, E.

Denman, L.

Forester, L.

Brassey, E.

Hood, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

St. Leavan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Southwark, L.

Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, after subsection (3), insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amendment of section, 41 of principal Act.
16.—(1) An order under the principal Act may, notwithstanding anything in section forty-one thereof, authorise the compulsory acquisition—

(a) of any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attach-id to and usually occupied with a mansion house, if the land is not required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; or

(b)of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such a holding.

(2) Where it is proposed to acquire any land forming part of a park or any such home farm, or, except where required for purposes of allotments, a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding fifty pounds for the purposes of income tax, or any part of such a holding, the order authorising the acquisition of the land shall not be valid unless confirmed or made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (1), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert "except when such holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who occupies it." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have on the

559
Paper is in respect of the clause which runs as follows—
"An Order under the principal Act may, notwithstanding anything in Section 41 thereof, authorise the compulsory acquisition—
"(b) Of a holding of fifty acres or less in extent or any part of such a holding."
The principal Act does not allow a small holding of fifty acres or less to be taken for the creation of another small holding.
Again, I must venture to appeal to my experience at the Board of Agriculture. I know the reason for the provision proposed to be inserted in this Bill, and it is this—that it has happened, not once or twice but fairly frequently, that a county council has found a small holding eminently adapted for a small holding, but held separately from a farm, very likely a big farm, by a farmer, who not only farms the big farm but also the small holding. That seems to be a case particularly suitable for the exercise of the compulsory powers of the Act, so that this small holding, which is not necessarily for the living of the farmer, should be taken and used as a small holding.
I do not for one moment oppose the powers proposed to be given under the clause so far, but the clause seems to me to go much too far. It would enable a county council to turn out a bona fide small holder in order to put in another small holder. It would enable a county council to turn out a man, to compulsorily acquire the small holding of a man, who was a small holder in the strictest sense of the word, and place another man on the small holding. I do not think that is at all in accordance with public policy or equity.
We all want to increase the number of small holders, but you are not increasing the number if you turn out one man and put another in his place. You are merely substituting a man who has probably less experience as a small holder for one who has more experience. It may be said that the case is never likely to arise; that a county council would never be so foolish.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I knew my noble friend would say that, but here I speak from personal experience of the Board of Agriculture, and I know of cases where county councils have wished to take land occupied by a bona fide small holder
560
in order to put in some other small holder, but were precluded from doing so by the terms of the principal Act. The Amendment I propose would leave it entirely in the power of the county council to take these small holdings for the purpose of small holdings unless occupied by a person who had no other means of livelihood. I maintain that it is a perfectly reasonable Amendment. From my own experience I say it is necessary, and I hope the Government will not oppose it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("holding") insert ("except when such holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who occupies it").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend speaks, of course, with wide experience on this matter, and I feel sure that one of the results of his experience must be to prove to him that it really is not very wise in these administrative questions to have hard and fast lines. For instance, as he rightly says, the old rule was that these small holdings could not be touched by county councils when they had once been created. And what was the result of having this rigid rule? The result was that all these little arrangements were made by which the whole object of the creation of these small holdings was defeated and were improperly protected by this division of farms into more than one portion. There are many other cases of the same kind where really improper protection, and unexpected protection, was given to these small holdings. There were also cases of accommodation land near towns where it was quite right they should be taken for small holdings and givers up to a different form of cultivation.
The noble Earl, undeterred by this rigid rule which he says has not worked well in the past, wishes to provide, I quite admit, against these particular cases which have already arisen, but there are all kinds of other cases which may, and possibly will, arise which make it unwise to accept his Amendment as it stands. There are many cases where land has been sold and the small holder has often been anxious, for his own protection and in order that he may not be turned out, that his small holding should be acquired by the county council. If this rule holds, and if there was any difficulty about the price with the owner, the small holder would not be

561
able to avail himself of, nor would the county council be able to give him, that protection which he might have if more administrative freedom were allowed to the Board of Agriculture.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He could surrender his holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is what he does not want to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then why does the noble Viscount say he wants protection?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I have not stated it quite clearly. There are cases where an owner has on his property small holders. I have got a good many myself; and supposing I want to sell my property, how then does the man know that the purchaser may not wish to throw a lot of these small farms into a large one and turn out the small holders? It might perfectly well happen. Then this small holder appeals to the county council, and he says "Will you buy my small holding, because in that way I shall get protection." If this rule stands the county council would not be able to do it and give that protection he might fairly have.
Then my noble friend says "Oh, but how hard it would be, and how useless it would be from the point of view of public policy, if you are going to turn out one small holder to put in another." That is an extreme case. I certainly can answer for two county councils that I know, and say that it is incredible that they should perform so foolish an action. My noble friend opposite, no doubt, has wider experience than I have, and he says there are cases where that might happen, but they must surely be very rare cases, and public opinion would operate against them. How can we legislate for such extreme and foolish action on the part of county councils? Must we not assume that they will generally act with good sense? Again it would not be always the case that the county councils would want land to put somebody else in. There might be some portion of it which might more conveniently go in with another holding.
As regards the specific Amendment of my noble friend, I think it is a little difficult to interpret it, because he says that the small holding shall not in this way be
562
protected except when such the Sole of livelihood of the person who occupies it. I am not really sure what that means. A small holder with a holding of forty acres might have a small income from the Funds. Are we then to look into the matter in every such case and see whether the man has some other possible means of livelihood. I suggest that not only would it be unwise to shackle the county councils in this way, but that in practice the matter would be extremely difficult to administer, because you would have unlimited inquiries as to whether in fact a particular small holder bad or had not some other means of livelihood. I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and to have some confidence in the common sense of these county councils, and not to put in this administrative regulation which has been shown in the past to have bad results, which may easily cause unexpected. difficulties in the future, which would be entirely removed or would not exist if we leave the Bill as it is.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I do not think my noble friend opposite has touched the point raised by Lord Selborne. His point is that if a man is dependent entirely upon his small holding of under fifty acres, and you take away part of that, you practically ruin him. Does the noble Lord opposite mean to say that people can invest in holdings under fort acres and make a living?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have a great number of tenants with under forty acres who are doing well.
LORD ST. LEVAN: Yes, of a certain class no doubt. You can exist on thirty to forty acres of good dairy land, and you can exist on that amount of market gardening land, but the ordinary farmer cannot exist on a farm of under fifty acres. Do you say that that can be reduced without injury to the holder? Is the noble Lord going to reduce the amount of land that a man will held to ten acres or five acres? Does he say that if a man has ten acres the authority can take a portion of that land away from him? If so what will be the means of the man's livelihood then? I cannot conceive what means of livelihood will be left to him. Has the noble Lord any instances of county councils objecting to this limit of fifty acres? No such objection has come before me, and I have

563
had something to do with the subject. I would further point out that a great. many of these small holder during the course of the war have been called upon to cultivate their holdings in a manner which they did not intend to do, entirely for the good of the country, and that they have met the requirements of the country in an exemplary way. If the reward of these people, having done is to be that they are to be turned out of their holdings, or that their holdings are to be materially reduced, what sort of encouragement is that to them to act in the same way in future? I cannot conceive why the Government wants to make this alteration in the existing law when so far as I know there has not hitherto been any objection.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope that the noble Lord will not press his objection to this Amendment. In the majority of counties in England—I should say nine out of ten—you cannot cultivate a farm of under fifty acres with the slightest chance of agricultural success. The noble Lord in order to appease the land hunger, which has not arisen in a very acute form up to this moment, is going to undertake the most uneconomic action which has ever been undertaken in this House with regard to land.
I only wish the noble Lord—though I could hardly wish it for any individual—had had to deal with Irish land for a great number of years. He would then know what the penalty is of taking away land from a man who can hardly make a living from it, and giving it to another man who has had no experience of making a living on it. That is precisely what he is going to do. The Government says: "Here is a landlord at one end with a farm which we can encroach upon. We will encroach upon it, giving him only the resource of an appeal to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. And here is a man at the other end who has the lowest number of acres which can possibly be cultivated with economic success. We will give the county council power to take from him that land, even if it happen to be his sole means of livelihood." The thing is absolutely laughable.
It is not only unpractical but absolutely opposed to all economic laws, and if my noble friend does not succeed in carrying it on a Division in the Committee I hope we shall renew the attack on Report. There is not a landlord sitting on that side of the House, whatever vote he may have to give,
564
who does not know that he would never think of planting anybody on his land with less than fifty acres if he could possibly avoid it because he knows that if he has no other means of livelihood he has no possible chance of making a livelihood out of a less amount. And may I add that if my noble friend would hot insist in fighting on his bad points as well as his good points, in a Bill which is bristling with bad points, I think it would be of advantage to the Committee.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I really think my noble friend should not assume that this Bill is so full of bad points when he has completely failed to meet the arguments of my noble friend Lord Peel He has not attempted to meet the arguments of my noble friend. Lord Peel said that in his own experience, quite apart from what he learned from the Board of Agriculture this difficulty had arisen in the past. I am only acquainted with two county councils, but, if I may say so, they are men of substance and of common sense. The Lancashire County Council, in particular, I am acquainted with. They are not going to turn a man from a fifty-acre holding in order to put in another man who has a fifty-acre holding. If this power is exercised by them it will be probably to effect a combination—one small holding perhaps in the centre of a field they may buy or one small holding with two or three other small holdings. By acquiring that small holding they might get more men on to the land. That is the kind of thing that will arise. I have no experience of south country holdings, but I will engage to say that, a substantial county council such as the Lancashire County Council, is not going to commit the follies that Lord Midleton attributes to them.
Let me now refer to the Amendment itself. Lord Selborne's Amendment excepts the cases where the holding is the sole means of livelihood of the person who holds it. That is drawn in very drastic terms. What is the result of it going to be? Lord Selborne proposes to exclude from this subsection (b) any man who owns a cottage besides a small holding, any man who has got £100, or even £10 in War Stock, any man who does occasional carting or casual labour—which is what we want our small holders to do. He excludes any man who works elsewhere, a fisherman, for instance or—as there are on my estate in scores—colliers who have got small hold

565
ings. Above all, he excludes every soldier who is receiving a pension from the State.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What an extraordinary argument for my noble friend to use! He tells you that in regard to the county council I am quite wrong; there is not the slightest chance of any county council using this power which is given, and then he turns round and says this Amendment is drawn so drastically that it excludes men who have other small means of livelihood. A more absurdly inconsistent argument I never heard across the floor of this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: No, I was replying to Lord Mildeton, who said we were absurd—that the noble Earl's Amendment went so far as to exclude everybody who had got a sixpence outside the small bolding.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: You ought to be very glad of that, according to your own Amendment. You ought to welcome it as the most reasonable feature of the Amendment. I say quite definitely that there are county councils of England and Wales who will misuse this power if they get the chance. That is my personal opinion based on experience. And the whole reason for this change in the law is the fact that holdings have been held in plurality. I admit that as a general reason. I say that when holdings are held in plurality let the county councils take the small holding. When the small holding is the sole livelihood of a man I say let him be undisturbed in his holding.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I want to say only a word in reply to the general arguments
used by my noble friend Lord St. Levan. With dramatic gesture he said. "What! These Mill have been told during the War not to use the land in the way they prefer; they may have ploughed up this and they have ploughed up that; they have been directed as to their method of agriculture; and now you are going to turn them out." Are we going to listen to a general attack of that kind on the county councils? Many of your Lordships are chairmen of county councils, and many others of you sit on those bodies, yet we are to assume that they will act with injustice towards men who have fought for their country during the war. This is an attack on the whole Bill. If you are going to assume that the county councils will conduct their business in the absurd fashion suggested by my noble friend, you had better throw out the whole Bill Because it depends on good administration by the county councils. We must attribute to those bodies some degree of common sense, and not suppose that they are going to occupy their time in hunting off the land men who have been discharging their duty to the State honestly.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I do not see that my noble friend is justified in making that observation. You have no right to hold out to a county council an indication of the course they can pursue as being the considered opinion of Parliament when everyone knows it is a thoroughly uneconomic doctrine.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be inserted shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Erksine, L.

Salisbury, M.

Waldegrave, E.

Forester, L.

Wicklow, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brassey, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Churchill, V.

St. Levan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Onslow, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annesley, L.

Ludlow, L.

Chalmers, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Bradford, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Rotherham, L.

Jersey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Shandon, L.

Lytton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

Southwark, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Faringdon, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Cave, V.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Wittenham, L.

Peel, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Recoupment of losses incurred in exercise of powers under principal Act.
26.—(1) At the end of the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March in the year nineteen hundred and twenty and of each of the six succeeding years the Board shall pay to a council of a county the loss (if any) which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council during the financial year in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act otherwise than in relation to small holdings of lees than one acre.
(2) The Board shall, on the passing of this Act, pay to a council of a county the loss (if any) which may be shown to the satisfaction of the Board to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred by the council in the exercise of their powers under the principal Act during the period from the first day of January nineteen hundred and eight to the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen.
LORD WITTENHAM LORD WITTENHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I made a few remarks on this subsection. I now raise the point once again in order to get a fuller explanation if I can from the noble Viscount who has charge of the Bill. The answer he gave me on the Second Reading was that the past losses would really be quite inconsiderable—probably £10,000 or £20,000 at the most. I raised the point not so much on the question of amount, although that came in; but I did not quite understand why it was that the old Act of 1908 did not contain within its own four corners a complete system of finance which enabled it to deal with the losses incurred.
I remember sitting for many days upstairs in the House of Commons in 1908. The then Mr. Harcourt was in charge of the Bill, and I know the question of finance was most thoroughly gone into, and the Bill was supposed to have been made watertight in that respect. Evidently it was not so in fact, because now your Lordships are asked to sweep out any losses that may have been incurred under the principal Act between 1909 and March 31 of this present year. I ventured to say on the Second Reading that I thought the country had quite sufficient liabilities to meet in
568
the future under the terms of this Bill without being called upon 'to sweep up old losses incurred under the principal Act. The noble Viscount said, in his explanation, that it was part of a bargain made with the county councils, who, in return for this and as part of their duty, would be content to act in this way as agents for the Board of Agriculture for the ensuing seven years. Perhaps when the noble Viscount deals a little more closely with the losses, if he is able, he will also be good enough to tell your Lordships what is meant by a bargain with the county councils. I should have thought that if it were a right thing to do under the Bill, it would be done without making some bargain behind the scenes. When I say "behind the scenes" I do not mean improperly, of course. Probably, there is some further explanation. If there is I would ask the noble Viscount to give it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to do what I can in order to explain to my noble friend. I do not know that I can add very much to what. I said on a previous occasion. I do not know whether I should have used the word "bargain" or whether that word suggests to my noble friend something of an unpleasant nature. It merely means, of course, an arrangement with the county councils so that they shall act for the ensuing seven years as the agents for the Board of Agriculture and the Government in the creation of these small holdings. As my noble friend knows, they are financed by the Government in so doing. The whole of their properties, both newly created small holdings and old ones under the previous Act, are to be treated for this purpose as one estate.
They will act therefore as agents for the Board of Agriculture for their estates in the county for seven years and at the end of that time, as I think I have explained, the whole of this property, subject to the valuation arrangements made under the Bill, will be handed back. Perhaps "handed back" is not the correct phrase, because no actual transfer takes place. The county councils will be fully responsible for them for the future and for the financial operations. My noble friend asks, Why should these back losses be made good? That is part of the arrangement with the county councils. They take this very onerous duty upon themselves, and it is thought not an unfair arrangement that the small amount of loss should be met.

569
My noble friend knows that half the loss had to be met before.
I am not sure that I did not overstate the amount of possible loss to be met in that way, when I spoke on the last occasion. I said it would certainly not be more than £20,000. I am advised that it will be somewhere about £10,000, so that the figure is getting smaller and beautifully less. Perhaps my noble friend may think, in these circumstances, that it is not really an unfair arrangement to be made, and that the assumption by the State of these particular liabilities is one which my noble friend may fairly accept as part of the general arrangement with the county councils.
LORD WITTENHAM: I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Provisions as to commons and open spaces.
28.—(1) Any land which is, or forms part of, a metropolitan common within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or which is subject to regulation under an order or scheme made in pursuance of the Enclosure Acts, 1845 to 1509, or under any local Act or otherwise, or which is or forms part if any town or village green, or of any area dedicated or appropriated as a public park, garden, or pleasure ground, or for use for the purposes of public recreation, shall not be appropriated under this Act by a council for small holdings or allotments, and shall not be acquired by a council or by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the principal Act except under the authority of an order for compulsory purchase made under the principal Act, which so far as it relates to such land shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by Parliament.
LORD DENMAN (on behalf of LORD EVERSLEY)LORD DENMAN (on behalf of LORD EVERSLEY): moved, in subsection (1), after "under any local Act or otherwise," to insert "or which is a common suburban within the meaning of the Commons Act, 1876." The noble Lord said: Although I ant afraid I am not conversant with the question of common lands as are Lord Eversley and many members of your Lordships House, I desire to say one or two words on behalf of this Amendment. I understand that the position is this. Early this year Lord Ernle, who was then President of the Board of Agriculture, received
570
a deputation from the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the National Trust and Nature Preserve Society asking him to afford protection to common lands tinder this Bill. I understand that some members of this Society fear that the adequate protection which Lord Ernle outlined should be given was not provide in this clause. There are one or two drawbacks assuming the Bill passes as it stands. Where common lands are taken under this Bill small occupiers and cottagers will receive no compensation at all for fuel and pasture' and other benefits, which at present they enjoy. Again, a though land can be taken by a county council for the purpose of experiments is agriculture there is nothing to prevent them selling the land later on if they choose to do so. In the Forestry Act there is a clause providing that where common lands are taken the, scheme shall be confirmed by Parliament, unless there is due protection of the public interest. If this protection is given in the Forestry Act a similar protection should also be provided in this measure. I quite understand that it may be desirable that in the case of common land in some parts of the country parts of which may not be very useful that it should be taken for the purposes of this Bill, but I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether it would not be fair that suburban common lands should receive more protection titan is given in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, after ("otherwise")insert ("or which is a common subarban within the meaning of the Commons Act, 1376'').—(Lord Denman.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The clause as it appears in the Bill represents, I understand, a general agreement after long discussions with the different Commons Societies. It is quite true that Lord Eversley does not quite agree with the rest of the Commons Preservation Society on this particular point, and the effect of the Amendment is to give the same protection to "commons suburbia" as is given to commons set out in Clause 28—that is, that such lands shall only be taken under a Provisional Order which must be confirmed by Parliament.
I would point oat that there is real protection given to these commons suburbia, because under subsection (2) an inquiry will have to be held. Absolute

571
publicity is therefore given. What are these commons suburbia? Under the Commons Act of 1876 it means commons within six miles of a town of 5,000 inhabitants. The reasons why these commons are required are for recreational purposes, and to enable the commoners to exercise their rights, but I understand there are some of these commons which have become obsolete, and that possibly some of the land might be drained and made useful I submit this should satisfy the noble Lord. It satisfies the main body of the Commons Preservation Society, and as nothing can be done without a full inquiry I hope the noble Lord will be content.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hold no brief for this particular Amendment, and though I have had a long and valued acquaintance with Lord Eversley, who does not belong to my way of thinking on most matters, I must say I was a little influenced, and not a little bit touched, by a long letter from him this morning, addressed to myself and urging me in the most urgent terms to do all I could for this Amendment. I feel that after his very long and honourable connection with this particular subject, his protection of the rights of commoners and the rights of the poor in commons, it would not be fair to treat with any kind of disregard an appeal coming from such a quarter.
I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in this. I do not desire to press the Government now but I observe that the noble Viscount did not reply to the noble Lord behind me in respect of the preservation of commoners' rights. That appears to me to be a material point. I quite followed the clear and courteous explanation of the noble Viscount, that there would be all sorts of publicity under Clause 2, but what powers are there in the Bill to secure the rights of the commoners in fuel and such things, if they can be shown to be damaged by enclosures? My mind goes back to a long series of debates and speeches delivered mostly by gentlemen and noble Lords of Liberal politics, against the Enclosure Acts of the last century, and how the poor were done out of their rights by what was thought at that time to be very good policy but which was very hard upon the poor in many cases. I know this is a trivial matter compared with those great enclosures of the last century, but still the same principle applies.
572
I am entirely in the hands of the noble Viscount as to the actual facts, but I do not think it would be right that the poor should be deprived of their grazing and fuel and common rights even for such a purpose as this, where there is other land available for the purposes of the Bill. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that if he cannot answer me straight off he would do well to make inquiry whether the Bill does provide for compensation in the event I have indicated, and that if it does not he should produce words before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I rise to support what has been said by the noble Marquess. I can possibly claim in one sense, as a Verderer of the New Forest, to represent a larger body of commoners than any other member of the House, and we regard it there as vital to the interest of these commoners that their common rights should not be disturbed. Therefore I second the appeal of the noble Marquess that before the Report stage of the Bill the noble Viscount should take into consideration some means of protecting the fuel and other rights appertaining to the commoners.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In reference to what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said, I think the commons to which he refers would be protected under Clause 28, subsection (1). With reference to what the noble Marquess said, I am advised there is under the Lands Clauses Act compensation paid for the extinction of common rights. If, however, further reassurance is wanted I shall be very glad to give it.
THE EARL OF SELBOHNE: the noble Viscount knows that the real point of the argument is that the compensation is not compensation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, that is so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (2), after "appropriation" to insert "and in confirming an order for compulsory acquisition." the noble Viscount said: This is inserted at the request of the Commons Preservation Society, and merely states what is the practice—namely, that the Board, when confirming orders, shall deal with the matter on the same lines as other applications for the enclosure of such lands.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, after ("appropriation") insert ("and in confirming an order for compulsory acquisition").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("1917") and insert ("1907").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: the second of the Amendments that I move on this Schedule is for the purpose of enabling landowners whose land is taken for allotments to be able to give shorter notice in order to get the land back if they want it to build upon.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 40, column 2, leave out ("boroughs") and insert ("a borough").
Page 21, line 19, at end insert:

Section 46

In subsection (1) after the word ("do") there shall be inserted the words ("or such shorter notice as may be required by the order for the compulsory hiring of the land").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 14, column 3, after ("boroughs") insert ("and 'other than a borough' ").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
WELLS PARTICULAR BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, this is the first of seven Bills promoted under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853 which I shall ask your Lordships to assist
574
me to pass. Your Lordships are familiar with the procedure and in the case of each of these Bills the necessary procedure has been complied with. Notices have been posted as required, and no objection whatever has been raised.
The schemes have appeared in the reports of the Charity Commissioners and I propose to move each Bill formally. If your Lordships should wish for any explanation I will do my best to give it.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Sandhurst)
On Question, Bill read 2a

NATIONAL TRUST CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
BROOKE ROBINSON MUSEUM CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
EATINGTON WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL PROPERTY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
PLUMTRE HOSPITAL CHARITY BI LL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
HEADCORN BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
CITY OF LONDON POLICE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause—
"22.—(I) the Minister and the Privy Council may respectively make rules in relation to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act and to the publication of notices and advertisements, and the deposit of plans and

575
sections and books of reference to those plans, and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections with reference to any Order or Order in Council are to be made, and to the holding of inquiries, and to any other matters arising in relation to their powers and duties under this Act.
"(2) Any rules made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act."
The noble Lord said: This new clause is merely for the purpose of providing machinery which, without dogmatising on the question, appears to me to be necessary for the proper working of the Bill. By Clause 3 (1) (d) the Minister is empowered to authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire land and easements compulsorily and to construct works, and by Clause 9 the Minister is authorised to establish works and transport services; but, by the second proviso, if compulsory acquisition of land is involved, the powers can only be exercised under an Order in Council, the draft of which is approved by both Houses. The powers granted in those two subsections are at present as a rule only obtained by special Act of Parliament, and in order to obtain such an Act promoters must comply with Standing Orders of a very stringent character, which require that adequate notice of proposals should be given publicly, and which, among other things, take care that interested parties have a full opportunity of laying their case before an impartial tribunal. The works contemplated in this Bill may be small or large, and there is no desire on my part, or on the part of anybody else who is supporting this proposal, to impede the construction of necessary works; but, whether the works be large or small, it seems only fair that adequate notice should be given of the works, and that any parties having legitimate objection should have a full opportunity of stating their case.
I repeat that this new clause is only meant to be necessary machinery Such items as the publication of notices and advertisements, the deposit of plans and sections and books of reference to those plans ought to be made public and under proper rules and regulations. Such rules are now, I understand, made in reference to Provisional Orders issued by the Local Government Board, or Provisional Orders by the Board of Trade dealing with tramways and electricity, and it therefore seems quite reasonable that similar provisions should apply in this Bill.
May I here mention the second of the two clauses, because they really run together? the first deals with rules in relation to the Orders generally, the second deals with Regulations in reference to notices, objections, inquiries and the hearing of objections in regard to specific orders. On the face of it the form of the second new clause is rather curious, but it is taken from the precedent of the Electricity Supply Bill, which is now before another place. That is the reason why it is in the form proposed.
Amendment moved—
After clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have very carefully read the clauses which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper, and also listened with attention to the speech he has just delivered. I confess that I think he has made out a case which ought to be met. There are two points to which I think he desires to draw attention. First, that there is a lack of machinery in the Bill at the present moment for holding inquiries in connection with the acquisition of land, and that I think is an omission from the Bill which his Amendment will meet. Then I also feel that it is not altogether justifiable that land should be compulsorily acquired without some machinery for holding a public inquiry and enabling those affected to state their case. There are several points in the noble Lord's Amendments which I think go rather farther than he requires, or at any rate rather farther than I am prepared to concede to him. I hope, however, that if the noble Lord will withdraw his new clauses at this stage, between now and Report I may be able to come to an arrangement with him which will enable us to put an agreed clause upon the Paper for the Report stage. If as the result of communications with him we are unable to agree, he will still have the opportunity of putting down his clauses for the Report stage, and in that event I shall be able to state to your Lordships the points on which I have been unable to meet hint.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the course the noble Earl proposes to adopt is a very proper one. The Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord is undoubtedly an elaborate

577
one—though not too elaborate—which requires consideration, and the noble Earl is certainly entitled to full time for consideration of its tenour. But I should like to place upon record that so far as I am concerned, and those of your Lordships who have acted with us in these debates, we consider it a matter of very great importance that the Government should accept the Amendments of the noble Lord. I believe that we are discussing only the first of the noble Lord's clauses?
LORD EMMOTT: I really spoke on the first two because they run together; but certainly not on the third.
TILE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. As regards the first two the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has very frankly admitted that there is a lack of necessary machinery in the Bill.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: As regards those I shall have no difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Earl accept those clauses now?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I would rather consider them all together.
LORD EMMOTT: inthe circumstances I certainly respond to the noble Earl's request. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him on the terms he mentioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved to insert the following new clause—
"—(1) If any objection to the making of any Order under section 3 (1) (do)f this Act or of any Order in Council under section 9 of this Act which have been stated in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed time shall allege that the proposals or some of the proposals are of such a character or magnitude or raise any such question of policy or principle that they ought to be dealt with by Bill in Parliament and not by Order or Order in Council, the Minister, or the Privy Council (as the case may be) shall forthwith inform the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons (in this Act referred to as 'the Chairmen ') of all objections wind; have been stated to such proposals.
"(2) the chairmen shall thereupon take the proposals and the objections thereto into con-
578
sideration and report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council (as the case may be) and if it appears from the report of the chairmen that, either of the chairmen is of opinion that the proposals or some of the proposals ought to be dealt with by Bill in Parliament and not by Order or Order in Council such Order or Order in Council shall not be proceeded with so far as the same is objected to by either of the chairmen.
"(3) A copy of such report shall as soon as possible be laid before both Houses of Parliament
"(4) The chairmen Wall determine all matters of practice or procedure which will enable them to take any such proposals into consideration, and to report thereon to the Minister or the Privy Council as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: I have a new third clause which is a different matter, because it introduces a different principle. I will be as brief as possible, but I should like to explain my reasons for proposing it. This Bill has aroused great interest in the House and in the country. I think that everyone must admit that it gives powers which are unusual and unprecedented. The case made for it is that there is at the present time a real necessity for a controlling authority to deal with the various kinds of transport. It is urged that there should be a speeding up of the machinery for dealing with the different rates of which we heard yesterday, or at any rate a large number of those rates, and we know that an alteration of rates is really necessitated by the enormous increase of cost for which the Government is financially responsible. It is also stated that there is need for an acceleration of procedure in regard to the provision of new schemes necessary to economise traffic or to shorten the routes by which the traffic is sent. On the other hand, as I have said, the powers of this Bill are so wide and so unprecedented that they need very careful examination. A strong general case in theory can of course be made out for this Bill, but undoubtedly if the powers given by it as it stands to a Minister were abused by some megalomaniac in days to come there might be an enormous waste of public money under it.
In these circumstances there is a good deal of mistrust of this Bill in your Lordships' House and in the country at large amongst responsible people. I do not think that mistrust—I am very glad to make this statement—is really of the Minister-designate, but it is felt that whatever appears in the terms of the Bill as to its only affecting the next two years, with a possible increase to 18 months in certain

579
respects, this Bill or some modification of it will last a great deal longer than two years. Therefore we are faced with the danger that with a different Minister and a different Government acts of a very serious character might be taken under this Bill and that there would be no adequate check. That being the case this Amendment has been put down, not of course with any desire to hamper the Minister with regard to small matters, but under the feeling that the wide powers given under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of clause 3 and by the Orders in Council under Clause 9, do seem to need some check of an impartial and judicial character.
It is to provide such a check that this clause which I now propose is put forward. It only operates in the case of schemes of magnitude. The clause is drawn on the lines of the well-known Scottish Private Bill procedure. It would enact that if the schemes proposed by the Minister were of such a character or magnitude, or raised any such question of policy or principle as ought to be dealt with by a Bill in Parliament, then the two Chairmen—the Lord Chairman of this House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House—would sit together, and if either of them gave it as his opinion that the schemes were of such magnitude that they ought to go by Bill, then they would have to be dealt with by Bill.
This system, which is applied to Provisional Orders in the Scottish Private Bill procedure, I am of course familiar with. I had the honour of being chairman of Ways and Means for six years, and in regard to the working of the Scottish Bill procedure I never had the slightest difficulty in agreeing with either of the two Lord Chairmen with whom I had to deal—the late Lord Onslow or Earl Donoughmore—with regard to any matter that arose before us. We always approached questions judicially, and I have never heard with regard to decisions made at that time, or before that time by the present Speaker and Lord Onslow, or by Mr. Whitley, the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other House, and the Lord Chairman here, any serious complaint of any decision arrived at. The scheme has, I believe, worked well, and I think a similar scheme would work well in this case.
I can only anticipate one possible objection that might be made—that it would come within the power of any objector in
580
regard to any scheme to raise the plea that it was a scheme of such magnitude, or raised such questions of policy and principle, that the case would have to be heard by the two Chairmen. That is a possible objection, but, if I may say so with respect, it is rather a Parliamentary objection than a real one. More or less it is the case as regards all private Bill legislation, and I think the tribunal in this case—a tried and experienced tribunal—can be trusted to dispose of trivial objections and to deal with them in such a way that they are unlikely really to be made in years to come. In all probability there would be very few Bills for them to adjudicate upon in any one year. I do not want to detain your Lordships, and I have given the case for the new clause very briefly. I earnestly recommend the scheme both to the supporters and the critics of the Bill. It does not hamper the Minister in any greater matters and the powers given in the Bill are so wide and so unprecedented that a competent tribunal of this kind, acting judicially, would be a great safeguard, and a safeguard which, I think, would appeal to all fair-minded men. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Emmott.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I am very grateful to the noble. Lord for having stated his case now and also for the spirit of his remarks. It will certainly be a help to me to know the objects with which he moved the Amendment and I will certainly do my best to meet him when we come to consider the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like, in view of the importance of the consideration the noble Earl is going to give to the matter, to impress upon him and also to represent to your Lordships, the very great weight of authority with which the noble Lord speaks on all matters and particularly upon this one, because we have the experience of a Chairman of Ways and Means who has actually worked this procedure and knows how it operates. I do think that will not only have great weight with your Lordships but also in another place, because it is a report made by one of its former officers, a very distinguished occupant of the Chair, who is able to say to your Lordships and through Ministers, to another place, how well the

581
system works. I earnestly hope it may be considered a good reason why the Government should accept the Amendment, and accept it more or less in the form in which he proposes it. I do not think a mere inquiry, unless it was protected by the traditional machinery of a Private Bill Committee, in this special case would be satisfactory.
LORD EMMOTT: I presume the noble Earl wishes me to withdraw?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: If you please.
LORD EMMOTT: I will do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
THF EARL OF LYTTON: the next Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made inanother place, and is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, leave out ("one of the Parliamentary Secretaries") and insert ("the Parliamentary Secretary").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: the Amendments in the name of Lord Oranmore and Browne are drafting, and I move them on his behalf.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 15 leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").
Page 24, line 27, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 24, line 29, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, line 2, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, line 3, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I beg to move Amendments name of Lord Oranmore and Browne, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("ways and Communications") and insert ("transport")
Page 25, lines 6 and leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting amendment. I am proposing later on to move out subsection from end of Bill ors Page 26, where it is out of place, for purpose of inserting it here.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 18, at end insert:
(2) An Order in Council under this Act may be altered or revoked by a subsequent order.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
THE EARL OF LYTTON: Lord Oranmore and Browne has a drafting Amendment on this clause, this I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
TEE EARL OF LYTTON: I have a drafting Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("unless context otherwise requires").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, subsection (2), before "departments" to leave out "or other public." noble Lord said: I move this Amendment to give noble Earl an opportunity of telling us what is meaning of "other public departments." A discussion of question arose to whether words included such bodies as London County Council and Corporation of City of London noble Earl said they did not, but on being pressed to tell us what they really meant, said he did not know, but he would make inquiries and inform us later.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, leave out ("or other public").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Lord is quite right. On being pressed by the Marquess of Crewe I was unable to give the meaning of these words, but I find on inquiry that they were inserted to cover the case of Departments in Ireland which could not be described as Government Departments. They are the Congested Districts Board and the Irish Board of Works. They do not refer to the Department to which Lord Devonport referred and of which the noble Lord speaks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 29, after ("system") insert ("and the expression 'easement' includes any right in or over land").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, lines 6 and 7, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection: "(4) For the purposes of the Regulation of Forces Act, 1871, and this Act, possession 'shall mean direction or control, but shall not include actual possession, nor shall any undertaking nor any part thereof, by virtue of such possession being retained or taken, be vested in the Minister." The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment in order to obtain a declaration from the Government as to the meaning of the word "possession." I understand the noble Earl is ready to meet me on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: On an Amendment of Lord Islington I undertook to look into this point to see whether words could not be inserted to make it quite clear that the word "possession" did not imply "ownership." I think this is the proper place to deal with the matter. Your Lordships will remember that there were
584
two points which I desired to safeguard. One was that there should be no distinction between "possession" under the Act of 1871 and "possession" under this Bill, and the other was, that no words were inserted in this Bill which would be taken as interpreting the Act of 1871.
I think the words which I will move will meet the point completely, and I hope be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I propose to insert, in the place of his Amendment, the following words—
"Possession of an undertaking, taken or retained under this Act, shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer upon him any rights of ownership."
I think those words will make the matter clear, and I beg to move them in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 7, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:—
"Possession of an undertaking, taken or retained under this Act, shall confer on the Minister such rights of control and direction as may be necessary for the exercise of his powers under this Act, but shall not confer upon him any rights of ownership."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. It meets my view to a large extent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to insert the following new clauses—
28. The council of any county or county borough may with the approval of the Minister make byelaws and regulations prescribing the distance from the centre of any main road within which no new building shall be erected.
29. The council of any county may contract with the council of any urban or rural district within the area of such county council for the maintenance by such county council of any roads, the expenses of which are borne by such urban or rural district council, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed between them respectively.
30. With a view to carrying out the powers conferred by this Act and advising and assisting the Minister or any local authority in relation to the construction, improvement, and maintenance of roads, bridges and ferries, the establishment of railways, light railways and tramways, and the promotion and improvement of transport services, by land and water, His Majesty in Council may by Order authorise the Minister—

(a) to constitute local traffic boards;

(b) to define the membership of such boards and the areas over which they may respectively exercise jurisdiction;

585

(c) to delegate to such boards respectively any powers or duties of the Minister in relation to the above purposes.

31. His Majesty in Council may by Order make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the powers or duties of the Minister delegated to such boards tinder this section including provisions that the expenses of such boards shall be met by the Minister, and that such Boards may promote Bills in Parliament and may make application to any Government Department for Provisional Orders under any Act in relation thereto, and may make such adaptions in the enactments relating to such powers or duties as may be necessary for such purposes.
The noble Lord said: These Amendments are put down in order to facilitate good county and district council government. There are a great many difficulties now in county council and district council government which arise out of the fact that the interchange of areas in road administration is not easy. As regards Clause 28, this Amendment is desirable in the interest of making good roads or streets. Clause 29 simply says that a county council may contract with the council of any urban or rural district within its area for the maintenance by such county council of any roads, etc. There are many small district councils whose areas are so small and rateable value so small that it is almost impossible for them to retain the services or pay properly a really competent road surveyor, and I propose that such a district council should be allowed to contract with the county council for the upkeep of the roads in its area, which I think would tend to the making of good roads and the saving of expense and prevention of waste.
Then, Clause 30 enables local traffic boards to be constituted. I suggest this might meet a very urgent case; namely, the case of constituting a London Traffic Board. There might also be traffic boards for Liverpool and Manchester combined, and for other great areas. Then Clause 31 is simply an enabling clause. I suggest that these proposed new clauses are of a useful and constructive nature. They have been put down with a genuine desire to assist the working of the Bill, and especially with regard to Clause 30, now that a Parliamentary Committee has reported in favour of a Traffic Board for London. I think it might assist the solution of that problem.
Amendment moved.
After Clause 27, insert the said new clauses.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I quite appreciate the spirit in which these clauses have been put forward. I have, however some difficulty in dealing with them. The first two clauses are, I think, really relevant to this Bill, but they are Amendments to the Highways Act and to a certain extent even co the Building Act, and I feel that other Government Departments are involved in the matter; and I have not had any opportunity of conferring with the Ministry of Health or other Department concerned. To the first two proposed new clauses I have no objection from the point of view of this Bill, but I hesitate; to accept them because I have not consulted the other Departments concerned. I am pretty sure, also, that they would be ruled out of order in another place.
The proposed Clauses 30 and 31 are clearly relevant to the Bill, but there I have objections from the point of view of the Bill. The noble Lord proposes to insert Clauses which would constitute local traffic boards, to which he suggests that the Minister should delegate practically the whole of the powers which are given to him under this Bill. That is a suggestion which goes far beyond anything which I can accept; and when we come to Clause 31, the noble Lord suggests that these traffic boards may promote Bills in Parliament. I would point out to your Lordships that even rural district councils to-day have no power to promote Bills in Parliament, and these traffic boards would be bodies without even the authority of rural district councils. That, I think, is a very strong order—to ask that the whole powers of the Ministry should be delegated to these small bodies. For this reason, although I quite appreciate the reasons which have induced the noble Lord to put these clauses down, I am unable to accept them.
LORD SHANDON: With regard to this Amendment, I do not know whether the noble Lord who his moved it has quite appreciated the great difference between the law in England and in Ireland with respect to roads. This distinction between main roads and roads that are not main roads in England does not exist in Ireland. In Ireland we have roads that are kept up by presentment by the county council, and roads that are not. With regard to capital provision, there is a statutory restriction which exists, I think, in England in respect

587
to main roads but which exists in Ireland, as I understand, with respect to all roads kept up by presentment. That is, you cannot erect new buildings within 20 feet of the centre of the road. The result might be very serious if this Amendment were passed. Large numbers of the roads in Ireland kept up by presentment are exceedingly narrow and buildings have been erected at each side of these narrow roads. It has always been a question, What is a new building and what is an encroachment?" I suggest to the Government that in dealing with Leland they would be well advised to further consider the matter before accepting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL: In the event of there being any question of this new clause being accepted I hope the Government will bear in mind the exemption which has always been extended to railway companies with regard to buildings.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not accept the Amendment, I merely pointed out that it concerned other interests. I could not accept it without further investigation.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: No doubt it will be convenient if I put it down again on Report. Possibly the Government may consider it. I would be obliged if the Government would also consider Clause 28, 29 and 30. After what the noble Earl has said I will not press these Amendments now but will put them down again on Report. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider them between now and Report and come to some final decision.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedules agreed to.
Title:
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out ("ways and communications") and insert ("transport").—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

EDUCATION (COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF GRANTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CLOWES SETTLED ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Cannock Urban District Council.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES BILL.
Petition for amendment of Bill of Mark H. Judge, Esquire: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Penalty on persons causing disaffection, etc.
3. If any person causes, or attempts to cause, or does any act calculated to cause disaffection amongst the members of any police force, or induces, or attempts to induce, or does any act calculated to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit breaches of discipline, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable on conviction on indictment

589
imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and in either case if a member of a police force shall forfeit all pension rights and be disqualified for being a member of any police force.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to add at the end of the Clause the following proviso: "Provided that where the person convicted of any such offence was a member of a police force and was not sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine the police authority may, if they think fit, pay to him the whole or any part of the rateable deductions which may have been made from his pay."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is proposed in accordance with a proviso made by the Home Secretary on the Report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons that he would consider how far it is possible to modify the penalty to be imposed on a member of a police force who is convicted of an offence under the section which is not of the gravest kind. A police authority deducts a sum not exceeding 2½ per cent. from the pay of every constable as a contribution towards the pension fund; and it is proposed that where a man is convicted under the section and is sentenced to a less punishment than imprisonment, the police authority may return to him these "rateable deductions," or part of them. This corresponds with Section 21 of the Police Act, 1890.
Amendment moved—
Insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended agreed to.
Clause 4:
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Abolition of limits on police rates.
7. So much of section twenty-three of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, as amended by any subsequent enactment, us limits the annual sum to be provided for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, and so much of section one hundred and ninety-seven of the Municipal
590
Corporations Act, 1882, as limits the amount of the watch rate, and so much of any local Act as limits any rate which may be raised for the purposes of the police, shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: There is a drafting Amendment to this Clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 3, line 19, leave out ("local Act") and insert ("other Act, whether public, general, or local").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
THE EARL OF JERSEY THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert the following new Clause—
11. An officer of the Metropolitan Police Force appointed by the Secretary of State to act as Deputy Assistant Commissioner shall, for the purpose of receiving declarations of men appointed to act as constables and counter-signing the drafts and orders for money drawn on the Bank of England by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, have all such powers as are exercisable by an Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The noble Earl said: Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, Section 4, it is part of the duty of the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to swear in constables on appointment, and under Section 10 he has to countersign drafts or orders drawn by the Receiver on his account at the Bank of England for the payment of the salaries and other expenses of the Police Force. It has been found that these duties make undue demands on the time of the Assistant Commissioners, which is now fully occupied with more important work, and it is desirable that the Deputy Assistant Commissioner should be empowered to relieve them of this work.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Jersey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock until three o'clock to-morrow.