GERMANS HOLDING BRITISH HONOURS. (Hansard, 25 July 1916)

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I desire to call the attention of the House to the very unsatisfactory answer given this afternoon by the Prime Minister in connection with the Germans holding British titles who are fighting against us. The Prime Minister has power to take steps to advise His Majesty to deprive these traitors, who at the present time are engaged in hostilities to this country, of these titles. No step has yet been taken by the Prime Minister. I called attention to the fact a week ago that the Prime Minister had power to deal with this matter, and I asked if it required legislation. The Prime Minister said "No, it could be dealt with without legislation." I therefore desire to ask the Government why it is that the Prime Minister does not try, at all events, to deprive these men of their titles? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take steps to deprive them of their honours? The Government must be 1646 fully aware that the people of the country regard the action of these men with the greatest repugnance, and it is really a perfect scandal that these men should continue to hold these titles, whilst, at the same time, the Government take no steps in the matter. Are these titles of no value to them? Is that the view of the Government? If it is not, why do they not act? The truth is that the Prime Minister never acts at all until forced by public opinion to do so. In view of public opinion, I ask that the Prime Minister should at once deprive these men, who are traitors to their country, of the honours that have been conferred upon them by the State.

§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL
We are engaged in a life and death struggle. There is scarcely one of us in this House who has not to mourn the loss of relatives and friends, and in the midst of that, when this country is making appalling sacrifices both of blood and treasure, every man in the field is confronted with the knowledge of German princes having the highest honours which it is in the position of the Crown to give. It is an insult to those who are fighting for us; it is an insult to this House; and it is an insult to every man who owns an honour that these gentlemen should take precedence, as they do, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, and the Archbishop of York. You, Sir, with your usual kindness and consideration, warned me I could not raise the question, which could only be decided by legislation on the Adjournment Motion. I know that, and, therefore, in reference to the peerages held by those gentlemen, which the Prime Minister said could only be taken away by legislation, let me say, with all respect to him and the Law Officers, that I entirely differ from them. Those persons could be deprived by the prerogative of the Crown, simply by the revocation of the Letters Patent. Likewise those peers in open arms against the Crown could be expelled from the House of Lords without any difficulty whatever. All men in open arms against the Crown in 1745, without any Act of Parliament, without any trial—the thing was notorious—were publicly expelled from this House. Then as regards the titles, ranks, and dignities, the title of Royal Highness is a title conferred by the Crown, and it can be revoked by the Crown on the advice of the Prime Minister in the exercise of that prerogative. So also is the 1647 title of Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Both these gentlemen in arms against us, leading men against us, murdering us or inciting to murder us, are Princes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. What an argument that is in favour of the union of the two countries! They have got various Orders, such as the Victorian Order. All these things can be removed without legislation at all. Simply by a stroke of the pen the holders can be deprived of them, just as Sir Roger Casement, a less traitor and treasonable person than they, was deprived by a stroke of the pen. What the people of England will consider is this: Is there one law and one administration for people in humble ranks of life, and another law and another administration for highly-placed and highly influential individuals? Are there to be wars and rumours of wars, are people to bleed and die, are their treasures to be destroyed, and are there to be a privileged few? I think the time has come when this kind of thing should cease. I said to-day at Question Time, and I said perfectly rightly, that these persons have more honours than were ever won with the full approval of the nation by Wellington, Roberts, and Kitchener combined. I do not think the people should bear this much longer. The duty of a Prime Minister has been laid down by Mr. Glad- 1648 stone in clear and express terms. He stated he has two duties to perform—first of all the duty to the Crown, and then a duty to the House of Commons and the people at large, who are represented by the House of Commons. It is the Prime Minister's absolute duty to recommend to the King, having regard to the public opinion raised on this subject, having regard to the disgust as to the holding of privileges by these people, to relieve them from the Orders of the Peerage just as in the case of ordinary felons and traitors.

Mr. SAMUEL
I regret that the short notice given has afforded me no opportunity of consulting the Prime Minister further as to his views upon this subject. Evidently it is a matter which provokes no small feeling amongst a considerable section of the House who desire that the matter should be taken into earnest consideration by the Government. It is naturally a question which appeals to the sentiment of patriotism in no small degree. With every respect to hon. Members who have spoken, it is impossible for me to do more than to promise to convey the views they have expressed, evidently with the approval of many hon. Members of this House, to the Prime Minister.