HC Deb 22 April 1914 vol 61 cc957-74

In Section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act, which relates to the impressment of carriages and horses, the following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):—

(3A) A requisition of emergency may authorise any officer mentioned therein to require any carriages and horses furnished in pursuance of this Section to be delivered at such place (not being more than one hundred miles in the case of a motor car or other locomotive, and not being more than ten miles in the case of any other carriage or horse, from the premises of the owner) and at such time as may be specified by any officer mentioned in the requisition, and in such case it shall be the duty of a constable executing a warrant issued by a justice of the peace under this Section upon the demand of an officer producing the requisition of emergency to insert in his order such time and place for delivery of any vehicle or horse to which the order relates as may be specified by such officer, and the obligation of owners to furnish carnages and horses shall include an obligation to deliver the carriages and horses at such place and time as may be specified in such order, and the provisions of this Act shall have effect as if references therein to the furnishing of carnages and horses included, as respects any such carriage or horse as aforesaid, delivery at such time and place as aforesaid.

Mr. NEWMAN

I beg to move in Subsection (3A), to leave out the words "more than one hundred miles in the case of a motor car or other locomotive, and not being," and to insert instead thereof the words, "in the case of an aircraft two hundred miles, in the case of a motor car or other locomotive that can attain a maximum speed of more than thirty miles per hour one hundred miles, in the case of a motor car or other locomotive whose maximum speed does not exceed thirty miles per hour fifty miles, and in the case of any barge, sailing vessel, other carriage, or horse."

This Amendment appertains to a matter of some little importance. As Members of the Committee know, Clause 4 places, on owners of vehicles of all descriptions a new duty. Up to now owners of carriages, including motor cars, could have their motor cars requisitioned by the military authorities in case of emergency, but the military authorities have to go round and collect these cars or other vehicles. This new Clause puts on owners of carriages or vehicles the duty of delivering the carriages, etc., requisitioned at some convenient centre. Of course, I quite see why this is done by the War Office, and why the War Office have to put in this new Clause. It is perfectly obvious that to go round in case of emergency to some depot or garage or aerodrome where there are aeroplanes, monoplanes or seaplanes, would be useless unless you had a pilot to take them against the enemy. It is obviously useless to have your motor car without a driver. If you are to insist in having a motor car or aircraft or locomotive delivered at a certain place, your main difficulty is overcome. In this particular Clause aircraft is not mentioned at all. I think it is a pity it is not. I think in this Clause 4, line 14, the words should be "any aircraft, carriages and horses," and that would make it plain. As a matter of fact, anyone who studies the Army Act will see that by Section 115, Sub-section (3), it is plain that "carriages" does apply to aircraft. Therefore, when we talk about carriages, we talk about aircraft. Of course, there is no difference in the old Schedules of the Army Act, but Section 4 of this Army (Annual) Bill does recognise aircraft. Hon. Members will see that a motor car may not be requisitioned from a distance of more than 100 miles, and an ordinary horse-drawn vehicle not more than ten miles. My Amendment starts by trying to carry the distinction a little further.

I want to differentiate between a motor car and aircraft, and, again, between a traction vehicle, like a motor lorry going slowly, and a fast-going motor car. Of course, for the moment, we have only begun to see the possibilities of aircraft. We hardly know what they can do now, and we cannot possibly estimate what they will do in the future, but we do know broadly and accurately what a motor car can do. We know perfectly well that the ordinary motor lorry, costing about £200, only travelled at a speed of from ten to twelve miles an hour, and we know that a car, such as the Rolls-Royce, can travel at from forty to fifty miles an hour. To travel a hundred miles in a motor lorry would be a day's journey, but a hundred miles in a Rolls-Royce car would be but a joy ride. We are bound to differentiate between the two. A motor car covering 100 miles is very common, but a motor lorry covering that distance is comparatively rare. Now take aircraft. Aircraft covering 200 miles is nothing, and I propose to insert 200 miles in my Amendment instead of 100. The other day a German officer flew at the rate of 100 miles an hour in an aeroplane. He did that on two occasions, and with ordinary lucky conditions 200 miles would be covered in something like two and a half hours. Then, again, the places where you can get these aircraft are few and far between. If you wanted an aircraft on the East Coast, and you sent to Hendon for it, it would be more than 100 miles. You would be precluded under this Clause from requisitioning your craft in such circumstances. Therefore, I contend that 200 miles would be more correct to put into the Bill. That is my Amendment. I want simply to differentiate between the various vehicles. Of course, we have moved fast since the days contemplated in the Third Schedule of the Army Act. All that we had to do with then were wagons drawn by horses and oxen. We have gone far beyond that, and therefore I suggest the Secretary of State for War should accept this Amendment.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the contention of this Section is good, and would be an improvement in the law. There is no doubt, I think, that the obligation to furnish vehicles to use that word as a generic term also includes the obligation to deliver them within reasonable limits to the places where they are wanted. The hon. Member referred to the Third Schedule of the Army Act, which is very archaic and does not apply to this class of cases at all. We are dealing here with an emergency proceeding, not with ordinary purposes, for the carriage, baggage, and ammunition and so forth, and the Third Schedule is not relevant to our discussion. The present provision in regard to emergency is contained in the fourth Sub-section of Section 115 of the Army Act, and applies to all classes of vehicles, carriages, and aircraft, and provides, and I think wisely provides, that the price to be paid shall not be determined in accordance with any fixed rate described in the Schedule, but if there is a difference between the War Office and the persons for whom vehicles are required, it is to be determined by the County Court judge having jurisdiction either in the place where the carriage is furnished from or in the place to which it travels. There is a good deal of force in what the hon. Gentleman said about the difference in the different classes of motor propelled vehicles, whether in the air or on the earth, and I think it would be an obviously unreasonable thing that the same rate of payment should be included for any vehicle falling within the generic description when applied to motor cars with their consumption of petrol. But I submit to the hon. Gentleman that it is much better to leave the matter in the elastic state in which it is at present by the provisions of the Army Act to be determined in case of difference by the County Court judge who must have regard to all the considerations that are relevant, and not to introduce any new fixed limit either as to power or pay. The Third Schedule may very soon become obsolete and be abandoned in favour of other changes and conditions. I think, therefore, we ought not to make any hard and fast rule. It is better that the matter should be left as now to the County Court judge, who may be trusted to have regard to all the circumstances.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not quite understand the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member—before the word "such" ["to deliver the carriages and horses at such place"], to insert the word "about." Perhaps the hon. Member would explain.

Mr. NEWMAN

Here again arises a question of aeroplanes. If an aeroplane has got to be delivered at a certain place, difficulty will arise. A man may have to fly from Hendon to some particular village or hamlet on the East coast of England to deliver the aircraft there. Aircraft can only be delivered in certain places, and therefore it is better to put in the word "about." A man may have to deliver an aeroplane to some crusty colonel of Infantry, and he may not be able to land at the particular spot. If an aeroplane could be landed anywhere it would be all right. But at present they can only be landed in certain places, and this Amendment is intended to protect the owners if they are not able to alight on the particular specified spot.

The PRIME MINISTER

I hope the hon. Member will not press this, because it would destroy the utility of the provision altogether. This Amendment applies, not merely to aircraft, but to all forms of vehicles, and if the obligation is merely to deliver them at "about such a places" it would give enormous latitude of interpretation which would make it practically almost unworkable. The hon. Member will agree with me it is eminently desirable that the military authorities should be able in requisitioning to prescribe both the time and the place at which these things would be delivered. To put in the word "about" is merely to give to all persons almost indefinite latitude in complying with the requisition. As requisitions are only resorted to in cases of emergency, it is obviously of the utmost importance that there should be some certainty as to where and when the vehicles should be delivered.

Mr. ASHLEY

I entirely agree that the right hon. Gentleman has made a good case in reference to motor cars. No doubt they can be delivered at exactly the spot mentioned by the local military authorities; but, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have evaded the point, and I think a sound one, made by my hon. Friend, that you cannot undertake to deliver an aeroplane at a certain place. There are only certain places available, and, therefore, I think some words ought to be found which, while insisting that a motor car or carriage should be delivered exactly at the hamlet or spot indicated, which would give some latitude in the case of an aeroplane and other kinds of flying machines, and it should be provided that they should be delivered more or less on the spot, but not confined to a particular hamlet.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a little difficulty in this matter. There is a scheme on foot for aeroplane landing stages which the War Office and the Admiralty have under consideration—

The PRIME MINISTER

This Clause does not apply to aircraft at all. It only applies to carriages and horses. If the hon. Member will observe the language he will see that the Clause applies only to the impressment of carriages and horses. At at present drawn the Clause does not apply to any animals at all, and therefore his Amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, dealing with the matter of payment for the vehicles which may not be requisitioned, is not in order.

Mr. NEWMAN

My idea in putting down this Amendment was to provide a datum line for the guidance of the County Court judge in deciding the amount of payment for these vehicles when requisitioned.

The CHAIRMAN

In the form in which the Amendment appears on the Paper, it will not do.

Mr. DENNISS

I beg to move to add at the end of Sub-section (3 A.) the following new Sub-section:— (b) And the said justice of the peace at the demand of such officer as aforesaid shall issue a notice to all persons whose names appear in the annual list made under the provisions of section one hundred and fourteen of this Act to have their horses and carriages in their respective stables and premises on the day and at the hour to be specified in the said notice, and to keep the same there until the same shall have been inspected by the officer appointed to determine whether the same or any of them are required for the purposes of this section. Provided always that such notice shall not apply to any horses or carriages directly employed in food distribution, and that reasonable compensation shall be made to any such person for any loss or damage that he may have incurred in consequence of such notice, any difference respecting the amount thereof to Be determined by the County Court judge mentioned in sub-section four of this section. The Government have already in this Bill amended Section 115 of the Army Act by requiring horses and carriages, which are requisitioned in case of an emergency, to be delivered—an obligation which they were not under before. The Amendment I have put down is a very practicable and desirable one, because it saves at least a day or two in the time required in requisitioning and actually getting hold of the horses. In case of an emergency mobilisation, that, of course, would be of the utmost importance, and it might prevent a raid from becoming an invasion, or a raid being prolonged to such an extent as to cause the loss of millions of money to the people of this country. No mounted units can move until the horses are procured, and this would include the horses required for Artillery, Cavalry, the Army Service Corps, and the whole of the Territorials, because at the present time they have no horses to speak of at all. The difficulty arises in purchasing these horses. Mobilisation would probably take place in the winter time, and during the daylight a raid would probably take place, and the horses would be out with their carts doing their ordinary work, and, consequently, the purchasing officer would have to purchase in the dark, either before the carts had gone out before daylight, or after they had come in at night. Therefore, it would be a very bad thing if the purchasing officer was practically limited to inspecting these horses during the hours of darkness. The great point is that the middle part of the day is lost by the purchasing officer for the selection of these horses. As a rule this officer has got a very large area over which to collect, and what I propose is that when the appointed officer goes to a justice of the peace and asks for a warrant to give him authority under Section 115 of the Army Act to requisition the necessary horses, he shall at the same time get a notice signed by the same justice of the peace directed to the various owners of these horses who are already scheduled, that they shall keep those horses in the stables on a certain day at a certain hour until the purchasing officer can inspect them. Those hours will be so arranged that the minimum of inconvenience will be caused to the owner. In that way it is most likely that a day, or two days, or perhaps three days, may be saved in the mobilisation of the troops, and that in an emergency would be of the greatest possible value to the country.

This Clause has been very well thought out, and it really supplies the one link which will make our mobilisation as effective as it possibly can be. These annual lists of horses are made out under Section 115 of the Army Act, and in practice, the man who has only one or two horses is not put on the list at all. If a man has four horses, as a rule they will put two of them on the list. They do not put the owner's name on the annual list unless he has about ten horses, and the rule is to put on the list about half the horses owned in each case. Consequently, there would not be such an immense amount of inconvenience, because this notice would be limited to those on the list of horses that can be taken. Of course, there would be a certain amount of dislocation of trade, but it would soon be over if carried out systematically, and the horses would be collected in a shorter time, and therefore the dislocation of trade in case of an emergency, raid or invasion is comparatively a small matter. Of course, in case of an emergency, everybody would be ready to help the country in time of need. There are two important provisos in this Clause, and one is the exemption of any horses or carriages directly employed in food distribution, and the other provides that reasonable compensation shall be made to all owners who have had to keep their horses in during daylight hours and have suffered loss or damage in consequence. The compensation is to be agreed upon between the purchasing officer and the owner, and in case of dispute the amount will be determined by the County Court judge. I think I have now sufficiently stated what this Clause contains and its object, and I commend it to the favourable consideration of the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER

Speaking on behalf of the War Office, I may say that we have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member's object, and we should hardly venture to propose such a drastic Amendment as the hon. Member has suggested. The provisions of this new Clause are somewhat drastic in their obligations on those who come under Section 115. Those who have to do with mobilisation would be very glad to see such provisions carried into law, but they think a little more consideration ought to be given to the subject, because these proposals might lead to a certain amount of dislocation of trade, and eases of hardship might arise. I gladly recognise on the part of the War Office the patriotic way in which this obligation is fulfilled in all parts of the country, but I hope the hon. Member will allow us to reconsider this point, with a view to some amendment on this point next year. What the hon. Member has said will be carefully considered, and if we can carry out his suggestion without causing any undue dislocation of trade, we shall be very glad to achieve the object he has in view.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I do not think there would be any very great hardship if this proviso applied to a particular hour on a particular day. I confess, however, that I do not like the Amendment as it stands, because it might lead to owners having to keep their animals and carriages idle for a considerable time. There is nothing to compel the inspector to go and inspect the horses and carriages on the day specified, and the animals and carriages might have to be kept idle for some considerable time. I do not think there would be any very great difficulty if it could be specified that if the Government officials did not come at, the hour of the day appointed the necessity to hold these animals in readiness would no longer apply.

Earl WINTERTON

In my capacity as a Yeomanry officer, I was one of those responsible for collecting horses on mobilisation, and, therefore, I should like to put one or two points to the Secretary of State for War. Without referring to confidential information connected with mobilisation, there are two points I might properly put. The case with which I am acquainted is one which would apply generally to a Yeomanry regiment, and it is the great difficulty experienced in obtaining the horses in sufficient time. In the case which I will call A, with which I am acquainted, the recruiting area for the horses for one particular squadron covers something like a radius of 15 miles. It has been laid down that those horses have each to be examined by a veterinary surgeon, and there is only one veterinary officer for each regiment. Consequently, it would be necessary on mobilisation to obtain the services of other veterinary surgeons outside the veterinary officer of the regiment, and I suggest that there are several difficulties which it is not possible for me to go into very freely, because to do so would disclose confidential information. If my Noble Friend's suggestion were adopted that the horses should be kept in on a certain day at a certain hour, the matter would be much easier to deal with. May I be allowed to say that I think, from my knowledge of the arrangements for collecting horses, there is a necessity for tightening up the Regulations so as to make it easier to collect the horses at any given time. I would suggest that the whole chance of being able to obtain sufficient horses for a Yeomanry regiment, which in any case is rather a slender one, depends upon being able to get the horses within a reasonable time.

Mr. BUTCHER

It may very well be that Section 115 of the Act needs some strengthening, but I certainly think that the Clause of my hon. Friend is far too drastic, because the owners of the horses and carriages are not only to be compelled to keep them in the stable on the day and hour specified in the notice, but they have to keep them there until they have been inspected by the officer. No time is fixed for his inspection, and they may have to keep their horses and carriages there for a month. Just think of the hardship to tradesmen. Tradesmen and their customers would be put to great inconvenience if such a Clause were adopted. Then look at the farmer. The farmer has horses which he works at the plough, and at other agricultural operations, and, if this Clause were adopted, he would have to keep his horses in the stable for an indefinite time until the inspector came. Therefore, while it may be desirable to have some strengthening of the original Section, I think it would require some serious consideration before putting the owners of the horses to such inconvenience as would follow from the adoption of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. DENNISS

The officer would only take about forty-eight or seventy-two hours at the outside to get in the whole of the horses, and it is not contemplated by the Clause that the horse would be kept there for longer. Of course, I see, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has pointed out, that the words would bear that interpretation, and I agree that they would have to be limited to some extent. Still, the object of the Amendment is, I think, pretty well admitted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Viscount HELMSLEY

The War Office have proposed this year to somewhat strengthen the liability of the subject in cases of emergency. I, for one, do not object to that, but I want to get some definition from the right hon. Gentleman of the emergency in which he contemplates that Section 115 of the Army Act would come into force. Of course, we quite understand if it is a question of the threatened invasion of this country, when every man available of all the Forces, both Regular and auxiliary, has to be immediately mobilised, that then no measure to impress horses and vehicles and animals of all kinds can be too strong; but I want to know whether it is possible to bring into force the words of Section 115 on a lesser emergency than a threatened invasion. Supposing, for instance, the striking force of the Regular Army were to be sent abroad, it would be possible for the Government, as a precautionary measure, to mobilise the Territorial Force, but I do not think that for an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force, when there is some war being carried on abroad and the striking force is absent; but when at the moment there is no possibility of invasion—take the case of a war like the South African War—these extreme powers contained in Section 115 ought to be put in force. I think that on an occasion like that it ought to be able to mobilise the Territorial Force without putting in force these extreme powers. Supposing the Territorial Force were mobilised under such circumstances, I do not think that the country in any way realises that trade would be put to the great inconvenience to which it would be put if Section 115 were put into force. It seems to me that this is a reserve power which it is very necessary that the Government should have, but I think great care ought to be taken as to the occasions on which they would exercise that power, and the War Office ought to make arrangements whereby they can mobilise the Territorial Force in the absence of the striking force without putting into force these compulsory powers. It seems to me to be rather shirking a difficulty which faces them not making other arrangements on a voluntary basis which ought to be made, and which the Government ought to be quite capable of making. I shall be glad to have some expression from the right hon. Gentleman as to what emergency is contemplated, and whether I have correctly described the circumstances as to what happens on mobilisation of the Territorial Force apart from a threatened invasion.

The PRIME MINISTER

The point raised is no doubt one of great interest and importance, but I should very much deprecate our inserting in an Act of Parliament anything in the nature of a definition. I think that considerable latitude must be allowed to the Executive of the day, subject, of course, to the control of Parliament. The Territorial Force, as the Noble Lord knows, can only be embodied on a Proclamation calling out the Reserves, and that Proclamation would only be issued on occasions of imminent national danger or great emergency.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Would the South African war have come under that definition?

The PRIME MINISTER

I do not know whether the prefix word "great" adds anything to the force of the word "emergency." I remember in the old days, when I used to practise in law, that there was a question of what was the difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence," and some learned judge said that "gross negligence" was "negligence with some vituperative evidence." I suspect that the difference between an "emergency" and a "great emergency" is an adjectival difference. I think it is very undesirable to insert in an Act of Parliament any specific definition of what the word "emergency" means. It must be better to leave it to be interpreted in accordance with circumstances which may arise, and which we cannot foresee. I do not think that there is any real danger that any Government, to whatever party it belonged, would try to exercise these emergency powers unless there was really such a state of things internationally as to justify it. I think on reflection that the Noble Lord will agree that it is better to leave it vague than perhaps to preclude the possibility of exercising this power in a condition of things which may arise, and which, if it did arise, we should all agree was an emergency in the real sense of the word.

Sir F. BANBURY

I understand that Parliament has nothing whatever to do with the Order creating the state of emergency. I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be subject to the control of Parliament. I do not think that it is. I think that any Secretary of State might make the Order. I rather agree that there will be no advantage in putting in the word "great." The real thing turns upon whether we are satisfied that the Order would not be made unless there was a case of great emergency. I think we may take it that it is not likely that the Order would be made unless there was a real case of emergency. I cannot quite understand the particular necessity for this new Clause. Why should we not leave it as it was before? The only difference I can see is that the owner of a horse or motor car would have to send his horse or motor car ten or one hundred miles. I am not the owner of a motor car, but I am rather concerned with what happens to horses and with the fact that the majority of owners of horses are poor men, and are therefore entitled to consideration which should not be shown to those richer men who are owners of motor cars. It is rather hard that a man who is perhaps using his horse as a means of livelihood should be compelled to take it away from its own stable and place it in another stable ten miles off. I should have thought that it would be better to requisition the horse, leave it in the owner's stable, and then fetch it when the necessity arose. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain why the horse should be taken out of its stable, and taken ten miles away.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant)

Merely for the expedition of mobilisation. It is obvious if you have the horses sent to a central place, that it is much easier for the authorities to deal with horses so collected than to have to go all round the country and collect them.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is all very well, but some consideration ought to be extended to the unfortunate owner of the horse.

Mr. TENNANT

He is paid.

Sir F. BANBURY

That does not cover it in the least. There is the danger that the horse may be injured. If a motor car is sent to a central depot and put on one side, it does not matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, does not it?"] It cannot be injured, except that a little bit of paint may be scraped off. After all, it is a question of expense, and, the owners of motor cars being rich men, I am not concerned with them. A horse requisitioned and sent ten miles away may not be wanted for a day or two, and, in the meantime, it is left to the tender mercies of the officials. One may be fond of a horse, and it may be quiet. It would be subject to all sorts of liabilities, and you might not be able to replace it. I do not yield to anybody in patriotism, and I should be only too glad to assist the Government in any way if such an occasion arose, but I do not see the object of this Clause. I should have preferred it if the Government had left out the provision as to the necessity of the horse being sent to a depot. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider my few remarks between now and the Report stage, if there is to be a Report stage. I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman has already made up his mind that there will not be a Report stage. Will he kindly inaugurate his new position, if possible, by giving effect to the arguments, weighty, I think, which I have advanced?

5.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON

There is a rather more important point involved in this Clause. It is, I think, one of more importance than that raised by the hon. Baronet. It is the question of the efficiency of the British Empire in time of war, and this is a matter of real interest to one who may be responsible, as an officer, for mobilisation. My Noble Friend referred to the fact that there are not sufficient horses in the country. That, of course, is a matter of common knowledge. We all know there are not. There will not be, and there cannot be, under the present system a sufficiency of horses in this country for mobilisation; therefore it is not to the point to consider whether the feelings of owners of horses may be offended. Instead of there being less compulsion, there should, in my opinion, be more. The Government in this case have found a mountain which it is very difficult to get through, and, unfortunately, it is prepared to take the easier course of meandering round it instead of cutting through it. The only way of dealing with this horse question, and the only way of getting the necessary horses for the Army, is to throw upon the owners of horses a legal liability to supply the animals in time of war, and to have them collected at some central point, as is done in France and Germany, and, indeed, in the case of every Continental nation, every year for inspection, and for the purpose of being certified whether or not they are fit for military duty. But what is the present attitude of the Government? I will tell the Committee what they do. They send round an officer—he was formerly an adjutant in a Territorial regiment, who was already greatly overburdened with the necessary work of his regiment—I believe a remount officer has since been appointed—and they go to the stables, it may be of a rich man with several hunters, or of a poor man with one or two horses used for the purposes of his trade, and they ask for information as to the age of the animals. They have direct instructions from the War Office to make the examination as easy as possible for the owner of the horses, and to avoid in every possible way exciting his fears as to what may happen in the event of war breaking out. I have no hesitation in saying that not one in every ten of these men has the slightest knowledge that, on an outbreak of war, which makes it necessary to have horses, every horse he has will be required of him.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a little too wide for the present discussion, which is upon a Clause proposing to amend Section 115 of the Army Act in respect of bringing horses to a centre instead of being collected. The Noble Lord's argument would be pertinent to a Debate on the Army Estimates.

Viscount HELMSLEY

Is not my Noble Friend dealing with the necessity for strengthening the powers of the authorities in the case of emergency, and is it not a question as to the extent of the emergency, and what is justifiable in consequence?

The CHAIRMAN

That may be so, but the Noble Lord is not entitled to enter into the whole question of the method of dealing with horses requisitioned for the Army.

Earl WINTERTON

I only wish to impress upon the Committee the necessity for making this requisition more stringent rather than less strong. We should make it as strong as possible. There is another point I wish to touch upon, and which comes within the scope of this Clause. I am convinced that there are in the country very few horses which it would be possible to use for military purposes. On the outbreak of any war that involved the dispatch of an Expeditionary Force, it would, of course, be necessary to obtain horses under this Act, and, therefore, the emergency referred to in this Amendment is one which should really be interpreted as an occasion on which this country is at war. I hope the Committee realises the fact, of which I am absolutely certain, that if such a war does break out the horseowners of the country will be considerably disillusioned as to the duty that devolves on them. I, for one, am convinced it will be necessary to put this Clause into operation and to obtain every single horse in the country, and even then I do not believe you will get anything like the number of horses required.

Mr. BUTCHER

I think everyone will agree that it is not desirable to enforce the drastic provisions of Section 115 as modified by this proposed Clause, except when a serious occasion has arisen. There are two reasons for that. The first is that it would be a great inconvenience to horse owners, traders, farmers, and others to have their horses taken; and, secondly, that most of the animals you would get under this Clause would not be so well suited for military purposes as horses trained for the work. For instance, a horse may be taken out of a cart and put into a military wagon. But to be of any use it would be necessary for it to have some training; therefore, I submit this Clause and the original Section of the Act ought not to be put into operation unless grave cause has arisen. That brings me to the word "emergency." It may not be possible to define it so as to include all occasions on which the Section would be put into operation, but I do suggest to the Prime Minister that the word is really far too vague at present. Suppose it was necessary to mobilise a part of the Regular Army with a view to sending a small Expeditionary Force out of this country, not for a serious war, not for a war involving grave national peril, but for a small war. The Secretary for War for the time being might find there was an insufficiency of horses in the Army and might have to get more. I should like to know would he be justified in treating that as an emergency within the meaning of the Section and putting into operation its drastic provisions? I think it would be exceedingly unfortunate if he were. I could understand in the case of an invasion where there might be grave danger the Section would very probably be put into operation, but where there is no national danger and the only real emergency is a shortage of horses at a particular moment, I think the Prime Minister will probably agree that in such a case the Section should not be brought into operation. Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of putting down, on Report, an Amendment which will in some way limit the enormously vague and wide application of the word "emergency," and confine it to such cases as have been referred to?

Colonel GREIG

It is very seldom we hear anything in what the Noble Lord says with which we can agree, and we are quite relieved, therefore, that we can on this occasion endorse some of his remarks. The time is rapidly coming when something further must be done in the matter of the registration of horses. It is a question for the agricultural community, as a whole, to consider. But it is evident, if we are to have our minds set at rest on this subject, we must adopt in this country some thing like the system which obtains in France or Germany, and I hope that hon. Members on that side who claim that they are more concerned for the agricultural community than some of us, although, as a matter of fact, there are representatives of agricultural constituencies on these benches, will do something to spread the idea among the community that there would be no harm in having this registration. On the next point raised by the Noble Lord, as to the sufficiency of horses in this country, I cannot agree with him. I think the evidence points to the fact that there are sufficient horses in the country, notwithstanding the enormous diminution—

The CHAIRMAN

That really is a matter for Committee of Supply, and there are other opportunities on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss the question.

Colonel GREIG

I would like to put at rest the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London with regard to the payment to be made to owners for loss or otherwise. There is provision an the Act that the Secretary of State shall cause due payment to be made for carriages and horses furnished in pursuance of the Section, and, if the owner is not satisfied with the sum suggested he can appeal to the County Court Judge.

Viscount HELMSLEY

I do not think the Prime Minister quite appreciated what I was driving at. I do not suggest it would be wise to define "emergency" in the Act of Parliament, but I do suggest that the Government should not contemplate using this provision for an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some assurance that other arrangements will be made. It would be far more satisfactory to the country to know that on an ordinary mobilisation of the Territorial Force, this requisition will not be made.

The PRIME MINISTER

I will give the point consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.