HC Deb 15 June 1917 vol 94 cc1365-83

(1) Where this Act is so applied with respect to any country, the subjects of that country shall be liable to military service under the Military Service Acts, 1916, in the same manner as British subjects; and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (a) The appointed date shall, as respects subjects of the contracting country who come within the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, on the application of this Act in respect of that country, be the thirtieth day after the date of the Order-in-Council applying the Act, and as respects subjects of the contracting country who come within the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, after that date, be the thirtieth day after the date on which they so come within the operation of those Acts:
  2. (b) A subject of the contracting country shall be deemed to be within the exceptions under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, if he is the holder of a certificate of exemption for the time being in force granted under those Acts or by the Ambassador or a duly authorised public Minister of that country in the United Kingdom but not otherwise:
  3. (c) Any British subject arriving in Great Britain from the contracting country after the date of an Order-in-Council applying this Act to the subjects of that contracting country shall, if not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, be deemed for the purposes of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, to be ordinarily resident in Great Britain as from the date of his arrival, unless he shows that the part of His Majesty's Dominions in which he last resided was some part other than Great Britain.

(2) For the purposes of the limitation on the number of aliens who may serve together at any one time in any corps of the Regular Forces imposed by Section ninety-five of the Army Act, subjects of a contracting country who become liable to military service by virtue of the application of this Act in respect of their country shall not be reckoned in that number.

Mr. MOLTENO

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "subjects" ["in the same manner as British subjects"], to insert the words, unless any subject of such country has elected within thirty days of the coming into operation of the Act to return to the country of his origin and does so return within six months of the passing of the Act, in which case he shall not be subject to the Act. The Under-Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill, stated that opportunity would be given for the return of men to their respective countries. In all fairness, the same opportunity should be given to Russians. Just for a moment consider what is the decision? These Russians found themselves in this country after the War broke out. The Clause to which I have alluded in the Russian treaty provides that neither side shall conscript the nationals of the other. Now, if you are going to make a change, it is surely fair to give these persons who happen to be here at the outbreak of the War an opportunity of reconsidering the situation. We are fighting, as I understand, for democratic principles. Every day we are reminded that this is democracy against tyranny and against autocracy; and surely it is not right for Governments, over the heads of their nationals who have been relying on the arrangements between the countries, and on methods which have been in force for 100 years or more—for the Governments over the heads of those nationals suddenly to say, "We are going to change the whole basis of residence in each country." On the ground of fairness, on the ground of democratic sentiment and feeling, on the ground of democratic right, it is only fair that the men of these countries to which you are going to apply the measure should have the opportunity of returning for service in the armies of these countries.

Sir F. SMITH

We accept that view, and we propose to give the opportunity in both cases reciprocally. The exact terms of the Amendment will be decided between now and later. We entirely endorse the idea that such persons should have a reasonable opportunity of exercising the suggested option.

Mr. MOLTENO

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that statement. I may explain that when the Under-Secretary gave us this undertaking on the Second Reading I did not place an Amendment on the Paper to carry it out. Therefore we were compelled to put something down to carry out the proposal. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he accepts the principle of this Amendment and will put words in—

Sir F. SMITH

Yes!

Mr. MOLTENO

On Report, that will embody what we are aiming at as nearly as possible, and I shall be quite satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

At this stage it would be advisable to bring in the Government Amendment, leaving out the words "of the Order-in-Council," paragraph (a), in order to insert the word "proposed."

Sir F. SMITH

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "of the Order-in-Council," and insert instead thereof the words "on which the convention is laid on the Table of the House."

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

May we know the meaning of the Amendment, it appears to me to be a very substantial Amendment indeed, in respect of the concessions that have been made that the convention shall be placed upon the Table of the House and shall remain there for thirty days. It now appears from this Amendment that the Government are going to count from the date of the Order being laid upon the Table the thirty days which make aliens in the country liable under the Bill. That is a very substantial alteration. What we desire is that there should be thirty days during which the House of Commons may raise any question in regard to this matter with the Government of the day. We desire promise of the possibility of discussion and decision in this House. Therefore, this is an Amendment of substance, and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put this down for the Report stage.

Mr. MOLTENO

Really it is not consequential in any radical sense, but an entirely new idea. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to put it down for the Report stage, so that we may really have time to consider it.

Mr. KING

I should like to appeal in the same sense, and so endeavour to save the time of the House. Then we need have no more to say about the matter till the Report stage, when we can see how the thing really works out.

Sir F. SMITH

I am not sure that there has not been some confusion. Suppose the convention were passed on 1st January. It is the intention of the Government that thirty days after the passing of this convention has been allowed that the convention shall become operative.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

The learned Attorney-General does not intend for a moment not to give us the fullest information, and if what he has said is the whole information he can give us, it is because he has not considered this point. Surely if the convention is to be laid for thirty days, it means that until the end of the thirty days, during which the convention is on the Table of this House and subject to amendment and criticism by this House, no Order in Council will be made applying the Act. As the Bill now stands, it provides that the date shall be the thirtieth day after the Order in Council. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to press his Amendment, it is a fundamental alteration in the Bill, because it means that he will begin to reckon from the day when the convention is upon the Table of the House, instead of thirty days after the date of the Order in Council applying the Act. He will see, I think, that that is a substantial point.

Sir F. SMITH

I really do not think there is substance in the point. I have said quite plainly that there should be thirty days after the Order in Council, and I think this Amendment as moved by me secures this result. If it does not secure that result, I will make it absolutely plain by the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think there is any further Amendment on this Clause.

Mr. KING

Is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones) in order?

The CHAIRMAN

I think not. Paragraph (b) deals with modifications of previous Acts in the application to this Act, and the hon. Member proposes to leave out one of the modifications and put in something which would not be a modification.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

On a point of Order. Do I understand your ruling to be that the object of the Amendment, which is to provide that persons coming within the scope of this Bill should have the same exceptions as those under the Military Service Acts, is already provided in the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN

I am only questioning whether the Amendment on the Paper is a modification of the Acts. If it is so, the hon. Member is entitled to move.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I should have thought that, as the Acts do not provide for aliens at all, this is the place to provide that they shall in this respect apply to them. I only want it somewhere in the Bill.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

With reference to my Amendment which follows the hon. Member's, and which raises the same question, the point I wish to submit is that the effect of paragraph (b) is to remove from aliens in this country the right to appeal to tribunals on the same ground that a British subject appeals, and the object of the Amendment is to secure that aliens in this country should not be placed on a worse footing than our own subjects, and this is a subject on which I understand that the Government had an announcement to make.

Sir F. SMITH

Is it not the fact that under paragraph (b) a subject of the contracting country is in a better position, as he has the alternative under the Bill, as at present drafted, that either he can show that he has obtained a certificate of exemption under our Military Service Acts or that the Ambassador or public Minister has granted a certificate?

Mr. H. SAMUEL

Is it not the case that a British subject is excepted—not exempted—from the Military Service Acts, if he is a minister of religion, and this Bill as drafted would deprive an alien of that right of exception? Consequently there is a distinction, as I pointed out on Second Reading, between the law as it now stands and the Bill—a distinction which is unfavourable to the subject.

Sir F. SMITH

I think my right hon. Friend is right. He has called attention to a point which I had overlooked, but it is our intention to make that clear.

The CHAIRMAN

I take it this is not an Amendment which raises that point. It does not seem to me that to leave out paragraph (b) would raise the point desired. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-housie) raises the point better.

Mr. WHITBHOUSE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "shall" ["a subject of the contracting country shall be deemed "], to insert the words "have the same rights with regard to exemptions and exceptions conferred by the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, as he would have if he were a British subject and shall."

The object of this Amendment has been already stated in points of Order which have been raised. I need not say more than a word to the Committee.

Sir F. SMITH

I will accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MOLTENO

On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to make paragraph (b) reciprocal so far as British subjects in foreign countries are concerned. Will he give the same rights as are given in this country?

Sir F. SMITH

That is so. I think I ought to make it clear with respect to the last Amendment accepted by the Government that what I said a moment ago must be taken subject to this: we shall have to introduce words to show that aliens of military age within this country are not to be permitted to claim that they are ordinary residents abroad, and are only resident in this country for special purposes. It is quite clear that no one wants points of that kind raised, and I accept the Amendment subject to that.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

Will it not be necessary to have some consequential Amendment to make this paragraph read? The latter part appears to be inconsistent with what the Committee has just put in. The paragraph will read: A subject of the contracting party shall have the same rights with regard to exemptions and exceptions conferred by the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, as he would have if he were a British subject and shall be deemed to be within the exceptions under the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, if he is the holder of a certificate of exemption for the time being in force granted under those Acts or by the Ambassador or a duly authorised public Minister of that country in the United Kingdom but not otherwise. If the words "under those Acts or" were to be left out you would then save the right of exemption by the certificate of the Ambassador.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The idea of my Amend- ment, which was accepted, was to secure the same tribunal rights to aliens as to our own subjects, with the additional right of being able to apply for the certificate from their Ambassador.

Sir F. SMITH

This shows the difficulty of dealing with this subject by manuscript Amendments. It appears to me that we all want to do the same thing, and we all understand what we want; but what the hon. Member has referred to clearly is in the Bill.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "under those Acts or."—[Mr. H. Samuel.]

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words "but not otherwise."

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY

Might we be informed whether the words to be put in on Report will make it quite clear that the machinery dealing with the certificate to be given by the Ambassador will include the giving of the same powers to the Consuls? I think that would be a practical way by which the difficulty alluded to might be very largely met in other countries.

Sir F. SMITH

That really is not necessary. In the past disputes have arisen, and we have never found our Ministers unwilling to take the personal responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN

That point does not arise on this Amendment.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER

I think in this matter there ought to be some consideration given to our own people, and those foreigners who have had the benefit of residing here should not have the double advantage of going before the tribunals in the same way as the English and then, if they fail to get exemption before our tribunals, of having the additional privilege of going to their Ambassadors.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. KING

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c).

I do not think it is necessary to have these words in at all, because these subjects would become liable under the Military Service Act. I think they should have some opportunity of going back, and then if there is any reason why he should not go back, the Government will not give him a permit.

Mr. MACPHERSON

I should have thought that the lion. Member (Mr. King) would have been the first to agree with this proposal, because these subjects are not deemed to be enlisted in the Reserve until thirty days after their arrival, by reason of Section I of the Military Service Act.

Mr. KING

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr. LEES SMITH

I should like to make certain that these aliens will be given the right to go back to their own country before being conscripted. Will the Government also take into account the question of providing facilities? Since the revolution a great number of Russians want to go back to their country, but they are unable to do so through lack of shipping. I suppose these subjects will not be conscripted merely because there are no facilities for taking them to their own country.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The Attorney-General has already given a pledge to that effect, and negotiations are going on upon this question.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Is there any provision to prevent these men being forced into the British Army if facilities are not available for them to go back to Russia? Are they to be conscripted into the British Army? I would like to know if on this matter we are to rely simply upon a verbal pledge of the Government.

Mr. H. SAMUEL

I do not think this case is adequately met simply by providing for an interval of time. I do not think it is the desire either of the Committee or of the Government that a man who is told that he has the right to go back to Russia, or an Englishman in Russia who is told that he has the right to come back to England, should find themselves conscripted into the army in the country in which they happen to be living. I think we should secure that some effective opportunity is afforded to these men. What we want to provide is that any person who has had provided for him an effective opportunity of returning to his country and has not availed himself of it should then become liable to this provision.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

There is one course which could be taken by the Government in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. H. Samuel) initiated negotiations with the old Government of Russia with regard to the arrangement under which the Russians in this country should be returned to Russia or should be dealt with. These negotiations are being continued by the Government with the Revolutionary Government of Russia, and we understand from questions that have been answered recently that these negotiations have reached some kind of an agreement. If that is so, perhaps the Under-Secretary for War will tell the Committee now what the arrangement is that has been tentatively agreed to by the present Russian Government, because I understand that the arrangement does deal with the question of the manner in which Russian subjects are to be allowed to leave this country to return to their own country.

Mr. MACPHERSON

The House will not expect me, I am sure, at the present state of the negotiations to say what they are, but I can assure my lion. Friend that the Departments concerned, namely, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Foreign Office, have been considering the best possible steps for securing, in the event of Russian subjects wishing to return to Russia, their return as soon as possible. I cannot very well go further than that. With regard to the point of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel), I think it is reasonable to say that we ought, seeing that we have said we would put something into the Bill about it, to see that effective opportunity is given to these people. We all know that at the present time there is a very great difficulty in getting transport from one part of the world to another, but I do not think it would be in accord with fairness and justice to give a man an opportunity of returning within a certain time and not at the same time to see that an effective opportunity to return was granted.

Mr. SNOWDEN

What do the Government propose to do to give effect to that desire? So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to do that, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing definite. He mentions the difficulty of getting back to Russia. We were told on the introduction of this Bill that there were from 20,000 to 30,000 Russians in the East End of London who would come under this measure. The great majority will want to go back to Russia, and at the present time, although I believe there are hundreds and thousands of applications to return to Russia, it is only possible to send them back at the rate of about thirty a week. I understand that there are only four ships available, and therefore it is going to take months and months to return these people. What is going to happen? It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable and easy to put into the Bill a provision that a foreigner should not be conscripted into the British Army under this Act as long as he has a reasonable excuse for not having returned to the country to which he wishes to return. Before we can allow this Clause to be passed we must have a much more definite undertaking from the Government than that which has been given. Are they willing on the Report stage to put in words to this effect: that a foreigner now in this country shall not be taken into the British Army if he be willing to return to the country of his nationality and if there are reasons beyond his own control for his not having hitherto carried out that desire? Unless the Government can give a definite assurance that this will be done before the Report stage is concluded, we shall oppose this Clause. It is a perfectly rotten Clause. I do not know whether by any Amendment we can make it a little sounder, but if the hon. Gentleman can give me that assurance perhaps we will admit it.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I heard the words of the Under-Secretary for War, and I anticipate with some confidence that he will give effect to them in the words he introduces for our consideration on the Report stage. It may be that if a Division were taken now we should possibly vitiate the pledge he has given.

Mr. SNOWDEN

He has given no pledge.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has, and that it is very clear, namely, that words will be put into the Bill on the Report stage which will give an effective opportunity—I think I quote the exact words that were used from the Treasury Bench—to aliens who desire to go back to their country to join their army there.

Mr. CROOKS

Will that be after they are conscripted?

Mr. GOLDSTONE

Before.

Mr. CROOKS

Then there is nothing in it.

Mr. GOLDSTONE

I think there is something in it, and I think the Government mean to meet what is the real difficulty. I want the hon. Gentleman to remember the numbers that we anticipate will wish to return. I think we ought to anticipate that they will desire to return now that revolution has come, but having regard to the number that may desire to go and to the very small number of transports available I think the length of time that should be put into the Bill should be a considerable period, otherwise the pledge given will not constitute an effective opportunity within the meaning of those words. There are so few transports and so many men, but I have no doubt that the Government will carefully consider this matter with the view to including such words in the Bill as will secure that a reasonable period will elapse between the operation of this Bill and the conscription of these people, so that they will really have an opportunity to get home to their own country.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Could not this point be met by providing that these men should not be conscripted when they had applied for a berth, and had received permission to return as soon as space was available?

Mr. MACPHERSON

I do not think that will quite meet the whole case, because it would not seem to me to be a very good test. A man might produce a copy of an application which really was not a well-intentioned application, and I do not think that would be a very good test. I have given a pledge to my right hon. Friend to see whether I cannot introduce into the Bill before the Report stage something which will satisfy all parts of the House, and, if I cannot do that, then my hon. Friends will have an opportunity of taking me to task.

Sir C. WARNER

We have just been told that there are something like 26,000 of these gentlemen who apparently have shown no desire to serve in any army up to the present, and no doubt the great majority of these 26,000, as soon as they found that they could remain out for an indefinite period, would say that they wanted to return to their own country. I would suggest that they should not be exempt from Conscription, but that they should be conscripted, with the understanding that they were to be sent to Russia or their own country, whatever that might be, at the very first opportunity, if they so desired. They could not be injured very materially by having a week or two's, or even a month or so, training while they were waiting to go, and they would be paid and kept in the interval. At the earliest possible moment they would have their desire fulfilled to get back to the country to which they wish to return.

Major NEWMAN

It is perfectly obvious that if there are anything like 26,000 of these aliens in the East End and you are only going to get them back in batches of twenty or thirty at a time, it will take many months before we get them all returned. The decision the Committee has arrived at will give very great disappointment to the British-born population in the East End, because of the fact that they will have these neighbours of theirs not for a few weeks or months, but for the whole course of the War. That is so, because by what we are doing now we are killing the Bill. I suggest that where an Alien says he wishes to go back to his own country and not to enlist in the British Army he should, until such time as we can secure him accommodation in some ship to return, be employed on work of national importance. He should not be allowed to carry on his job, but should be at the disposal of some authority to be employed on some work of national importance. And then when the ship is ready his berth is there, and he is put on board and sent to Russia to do his fighting.

Captain AMERY

I should like to submit a suggestion for the consideration of the Government. The distinction is not serving in the British Army or going to Russia, but whether a man wishes to do his service in the British Army or the Russian Army. The Russian Forces in the field are much more accessible from the transport point of view than Russia itself, and the difficulties might be met if you put to the men the alternative, "Do you wish to go and serve in the Russian Forces?"—leaving it to the discretion of the Government whether they would like them back in Russia or send them into training with the forces in France or Salonika—or "Do you wish to serve in the British Forces?" In the latter case they take their training in this country.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

But objection may be made to that suggestion because the Government has already given an assurance, which was welcomed by the whole Committee.. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but it was stated that our own subjects abroad, in whatever country affected by conventions made under this Act, will be given the opportunity of returning to this country instead of serving with foreign armies. As we have claimed that arrangements should be given to our own subjects, surely we must give foreign subjects within our own borders the choice of serving in the British Army or of returning to their own country.

Mr. C. REES

There are to be thirty days in which to choose whether to serve in the British Army or go back to Russia. With reference to the thirty days, if a man says, "I will go back," and he intends to do so, and if he exercises his choice to go back to Russia, is it not the business of the country to take him back? The Government ought to arrange for these men to go back as quickly and promptly as possible, and not leave it to individual men, who may have a difficulty in making arrangements.

Major HAMILTON

It seems to me clear that this difficulty, as agreed by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government, deserves further consideration. I look upon it so seriously that I ask him to reconsider it, because it, as he states, there are some 20,000, at the rate of transportation now, it would take months and months before they could go—twenty years, someone has said. A very large number of them will be tired of waiting for the ship. I suggest you get over that. Everyone who did not come under Subsection (b) or who is exempted should be put under reserve and posted to some corps or unit where they will do work for the country and will be got rid of as fast as they can be sent out. This seems to me a simple thing to do.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I hope there will not be any undue delicacy in regard to how these subjects of foreign countries are going to be treated under this Bill. It is to be remembered that for many years these men have been accepting the hospitality of this country, and many of them have been making a great deal of money. They have seen the country which protected them struggling for its existence for three years. They have held aloof, and they have seen Britishers being called up day after day. These men have shirked the responsibility of protecting their adopted country. Why should we be devoting the time of the House of Commons to consider whether we may not offend the susceptibilities of these gentlemen? I say it is a public scandal this Bill was not passed a year ago. I think that is the opinion of people outside. I will not refer to what was said earlier in the Debate, that men have been sent back who have been wounded two, three, four, or five times, while these gentlemen have fattened on the fact that they have not been called to the defence of their country. I have great sympathy with political refugees, men who have left their country because of their political opinions, and I should take them into consideration to the fullest extent. But there is no person in that category I am speaking of.

4.0 P.M.

I am speaking of Russia, but I think it is a mistake to limit our consideration to Russians alone. If an enumeration were taken it would be astounding to find how many men belonging to our Allies are shirking service. Until the Bill passes they have the right to take their freedom and decline to defend their country. As soon as the Bill passes there should not be any delay in putting it into operation. We have a Russian Army in France. Why cannot these men be trained in the country or France? I hope the Government will set their face against anyone taking up work. If there is any extraordinary delay it will be possible for six and nine months to elapse before the services of these gentlemen will be able to be taken advantage of. This has been far too long delayed, and I hope the Government will not make any further concession in regard to what has been a scandal for a long time. I know from my own knowledge that men are making practically fortunes for people of their position through our own people, and this is a time when the sooner the Bill is brought into operation the better for all concerned.

Mr. CROOKS

If I was a political refugee in this country, I should thank the small minority for the way they have championed my cause. These people have enjoyed their hospitality, and that has been our weakness. It is like going into a man's house and enjoying his protection, and when a fire breaks out and he is asked to carry a bucket of water say- ing, "Not me." I cannot understand why so much time of the House has been wasted in defence of men who have enjoyed the hospitality of our homes, and will not lift a finger to protect what we are fighting for. Life has been sacrified by our own people to protect whom? To protect them. Why all this bother about this Bill? Why this opposition to it just to sow the seeds of belief in Germany that we are a disunited people? The country was never more solid than at this moment to finish the War, and to finish it victoriously too, I have had a painful experience. This very day I have attended a coroner's inquiry on seventeen little children, fifteen of whom were less than five years old. Is that war? Did we begin to wage war on children and on women? Who has encouraged them to go on? Why the opposition in this House. Every word that they have uttered against the War has been translated to mean that we are weak, whereas we were never stronger. Many a woman taking her allotment money, many a father and mother taking their allowance for sons who are serving the country say, "Why should my poor boy go back the third time? Look at that alien there enjoying our hospitality and doing nothing." Talk of justice and patriotism in the same breath as we talk of the annihilation of seventeen little children! Call it war? I call it murder, and these people who are opposed to this Bill are encouraging it. You may smile, but it is true, every word of it. "Keep on a little longer, and we have the British beaten. Mark what the member for so and so says. There is disunion in the country. They are not united." What a mistake to make! On Wednesday of this week, just recovering from the shock, I faced hundreds of mothers, and grandmothers who were brought up with me, crying, "My God, what shall we do?" Never a word said about peace, not by one of them. And the fathers when they came along in the meal hour said, "We shall get level with-the murderers yet." So we shall, and the sooner we are united the better. Who lets these telegrams go abroad? Who talks of starvation? Who talks of the want of courage? It is the members of the debating society who let off their opportunities in this House. England can stand a good deal more than what she has stood before she cries, "All over.'' The word of the mothers of this country, when they know what has happened, is, "Perish. Britain rather than surrender to the Germans." What of the brave boys who have left homes hardly worth calling homes'? With a stiff lip sometimes a mother says "My poor boy has gone down, but he was a good lad. He loved his father. He loved his children as his life. We talk about him many a time." In the days to come, when they realise what the Germans have done, how they have murdered women and children, how they have outraged them beyond description— I have heard Members on that side say that we have done the same. Perish the thought!

Mr. GINNELL

Quite true!

Mr. CROOKS

We never have. In the days to come women will teach their little children the glories of this age, and the names of the men who scorn our efforts to save the world, its purity, and its liberty will go down to obliquy and scorn—at least I hope so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Short Title) added to the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

We now come to the new Clauses. Does the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) wish to move the first new Clause in his name (Date of Commencement)?

Mr. KING

I do not wish to move that one.

The CHAIRMAN

The second (Exclusion of Certain States) has already been disposed of. The third one (Saving) should be brought in as an Amendment to Clause 1. The next one (Naturalisation) is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. KING

May I say something on that Clause? Is it really outside the scope of the Bill in view of the repeated assurances we have had within the last twelve months from Ministers that if aliens were to be brought into the Army, they ought to be offered the rights of citizenship under proper conditions? It has always been said in discussing this question that if a man is ready to give his life for this country, he is worthy to be a citizen of it.

The CHAIRMAN

That is a point on the merits. It may be a very good point, but I have nothing to do with it. It is quite clear that it does not come within the scope of this Bill. The same applies to the hon. Member's next new Clause (Organisation), and the last in that batch (Tribunals) should have been moved as an Amendment to Clause 2, so far as not already dealt with. The first Clause (Date of Commencement) standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division of Wilts (Mr. R. Lambert)—

Mr. R. LAMBERT

I do not move that one.

The CHAIRMAN

The next one (Exclusion of States) has been disposed of. The third one (Tribunals) should have been moved as an Amendment to Clause 2 The fourth (Duration) is outside the scope of the Bill. Then we come to the hon. Member for North Somerset's new Clause (Notice to Foreigners). That does not come in as a new Clause, and in an altered form it should have been an Amendment to Clause 2. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division (Notice to Foreigners) I have already dealt with. The second one (Officers) is outside the scope of the Bill. The third one (Conventions to he Published) should be moved as an Amendment to one of the Clauses, and I believe that point has been dealt with on one of the Clauses. The next one (Naturalisation of Soldiers), as I have already said, is outside the scope of the Bill. The next one (Repatriation of Subjects of Contracting Country) has been partly dealt with, and, if there is any other point in it, it ought to have been dealt with on the Clause. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Conventions to be Published) has already been settled, and the second (Naturalisation of Soldiers) is outside the scope of the Bill. I come next to the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). The first Clause in his name (Repatriation of Subjects of Contracting Country) is one which should have been moved as an Amendment to a Clause, and the same applies to the second one (Publication in Gazette).

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

They are both covered.

The CHAIRMAN

I think all three are covered. The third (Interpretation) is really unnecessary, as we have discussed and settled that on the Clause. The next new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Respect for Religious Faith), is outside the scope of the Bill, and the next one in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Conventions to be Ratified by Parliament) should have been dealt with on the Clause. The next one in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Certificates of Exemption) should, so far as it is appropriate, have been dealt with on Clause 2, which deals with these matters. The Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Naturalisation of Soldiers) is outside the scope of the Bill. The Amendments proposed to the Schedule have been dealt with.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as Amended, to the House."

Mr. KING

On a point of Order. Ought not the words "and other" to come out of the title after the alterations which have been made? I will not press it now, but I hope it will be accepted on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 67.]