§ (2) Where any person, who under this Section is deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve, is a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination, he shall not on being called up for service with the Colours be required, except with his consent, to perform combatant service.
§ If any question arises as to whether any per son is a man in Holy Orders or such a minister as aforesaid, that question shall be referred in the prescribed manner to the Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, whose decision on the question shall be final and conclusive.
§ (3) The proviso to Section two, and Section eight, of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), shall cease to have effect:
277§ Provided that the foregoing provision shall be without prejudice to any undertaking recognised by His Majesty's Government and for the time being in force, whereby it is provided that any released or exchanged prisoners of war shall not serve in His Majesty's Forces during the present War.
§ (4) All the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, as amended by this Act, shall, so far as applicable, extend to men to whom this Section applies in the same manner as to men to whom Section one of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), applied.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2). I move this Amendment as I promised last night.
§ Mr. SNOWDENMay I respectfully ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you are passing over Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) and myself in regard to age?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThis will not apply to what the old English law used to call" a religious man." It will apply to religious men who are Nonconformists, though I do not know whether that will include Presbyterians. [An Hon. Member: "It will…"] I should like humbly and respectfully to say that the Government ought to have regard to the religious men in "the Catholic Church other than ordained clergymen. As far as my experience goes—and I wish to give the Government this recognition — in my opinion the old Act has been fairly ad ministered as regards religious men. I have never, except as regards one student who was very near his ordination, received a complaint as to the administration of the Act in England. I think you have acted fairly in England. I trust that that will be the verdict in future when this Act is in force, though one cannot say. But I might be allowed to say as regards monks, some of whom have been engaged for twenty years in teaching, that it is the height of absurdity if you expect to make any military use of any of these men, no matter what their age. Really, I am rather tired of talking on matters in connection with this Bill, or against the production of such a Bill as this, howled for by the English newspapers, which have said that it is the business of the Government to shoot, and not to argue with those opposed to them. Shoot us; do not argue with us… This Bill, having such consequences, is to be discussed at the 278 point of the bayonet… That such should be the case is, to my mind, the setting back the hands of the clock something like 100 years. By this Bill you may, in your action against religious men, excite prejudice against yourself. And the Government are doing all this at the suggestion of narrow and prejudiced people in London, some of whom are themselves of military age, who think that the monks ought to be brigaded in France and Flanders, but who themselves prefer to be brigaded in Fleet Street.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to thank the Home Secretary for accepting this Amendment, which I moved in the Committee stage. His object, however, is directly opposed to the object with which I moved the Amendment in Committee. We are at least agreed that compromise is not satisfactory. The only question that now remains is whether the clergy should be wholly exempted, or whether they should be wholly included. I will not delay the House by repeating the arguments I used in the Committee stage, but I do want to-express my regret at the decision of the Government. At a time when they are imposing, and I think rightly, this very difficult Bill upon the country, they are refusing to except a class. This alteration means some hundreds of Grade 1 men lost to the Colours. The Government should realise the extreme hardship, in practice, that must necessarily be imposed by this Bill. There will be no good feeling produced towards the Churches by the absolute exemption of the clergy from the obligation of military service. The Churches themselves, I believe—certainly the Church of England—has not asked for this. Whatever, of course, may be at the back, I am sure the great mass of the Churches want to play their part in this War as ordinary citizens.
§ Mr. DENMANThere is every difference in the world between doing it voluntarily and coming within a compulsory Clause. Especially those who have fought in France will bear in mind that—whether with their will or not does not matter— ministers of religion have not borne the full and equal burden imposed upon other classes of the community. That will be remembered against them after the War, and will stir up ill-feeling which, I, personally, would have been most glad to avoid.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI rise to express my cordial agreement with what I conceive to be the ultimate object of the Home Secretary in moving this Amendment. I understand that this Amendment is the first necessary to remove persons in Holy Orders and regular ministers of other religious bodies from the Bill, and that this Amendment is to be followed by another exempting them in the Schedule of the Act. I have always opposed the conscription of the clergy and ministers—as indeed I have opposed the conscription of anybody and everybody—and I should be sorry for the Home Secretary's Amendment to be inserted in the Bill, without the House being asked to consider what are the grounds for exempting the clergy and ministers.
The history of this question in this House on this Bill is a remarkable one. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle two or three nights ago, on the Committee stage, moved the same Motion as the Home Secretary has now moved. He moved it in order to conscript the clergy and ministers for combatant service in precisely the same terms as everyone else under the Bill. The hon. Member's Motion was defeated by a majority of about 300 Members of this House desiring to retain the Bill in the form in which it was introduced by the Home Secretary. On that occasion mine was the only voice raised in this House to protest against the conscription of the clergy. I cannot believe, as I said before, that the Home Secretary has conic to his present attitude in consequence of the remarks that I made on that occasion.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEIt is extremely gratifying to me to be able to record that that is the only logical explanation of the attitude of the Home Secretary, and I am very glad to be interrupted to be told so. But I think I know the Home Secretary too well—perhaps I should say I know the Government rather too well—to believe that they have proceeded as they have for any such reason. What has happened is this: There has been a great revolt behind the scenes. I have read the letters which have been appearing in the "Times" from the Bishop of Chelmsford and others. I remember some time ago the Bishop of Chelmsford was actively sup porting service for other people, and, indeed, in the course of his address he stated that he himself was going to take, 280 in private, lessons in physical training. In yesterday's "Times" the Bishop of Chelmsford protests altogether against the conscription of the clergy. He states in this letter what I reminded the Committee on a previous occasion, that the clergy would be very useful at home because of the increasing lawlessness of the children of soldiers—a most amazing statement to make, a most extraordinary statement to make, and I think a most improper one … He said further that they will be useful at home" in assisting the piling up of spiritual munitions." I am quoting the words of the bishop. I was sorry when the Home Secretary came down and, with out any relevancy to the discussion, announced that he was going to exempt the clergy, that he gave as one of his reasons that the Bishop of Chelmsford had mentioned the great help they would render. These are not the grounds which those of us who appeal for the exemption of the clergy from this Bill desire to urge. The right of clergymen and ministers to accept exemption under this Bill is precisely the same right which is claimed by applicants of exemption upon the grounds of a conscientious objection to military service. The same right exists in each case. I have always appealed for the rights given by Statute to conscientious objectors, and I know how extremely unpopular that subject has always been in this House. We know now that the clergy and ministers have put forward the same objection. We know that at the great meeting called yesterday various considerations were urged, but I want it to be made quite clear that the only ground we put forward for exemption in this case is precisely that which we put forward for other citizens of this country, namely, that the clergy have a conscientious objection to military service. I regret such reasons as those which were put forward by the Bishop of Chelmsford and by the Home Secretary yesterday. Whilst I very heartily support the exclusion of clergy and ministers, I do soon precisely the same grounds that I have supported the exclusions of other citizens of this country.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI do not wish to enter into the general considerations which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitehouse) has just put before the House. I have always regarded exemption of any ministers of religion as quite illogical, and I has risen to ask for an explanation. I 281 think it is well for the House to understand why the Government is doing this. It is not on account of the eloquent speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark or the Member for North-East Cork, neither is it on account of the conscientious objection of the clergy, but it is because there has been an agitation on this subject in Wales. It is very significant that the concession was made after a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, and why was that speech made on the Committee stage? Because there had been a revolt amongst the Nonconformist ministers in Wales. They went to hear the Prime Minister at the Free Church Council meetings, and there the Prime Minister asked them to pray—
§ Mr. ANDERSONThe Prime Minister is past praying for.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI think when the history of this question is elucidated it will be found that I have given the correct explanation. Everybody who knows the grounds upon which this Government usually proceeds will agree that I put for ward an explanation which is certainly very probable. We had the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and immediately after that we had the reply of the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for East Cork got no reply, but he only represents a small party in Ireland.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThat is not so now …
§ Mr. PRINGLEThat may not be so now, and in that case we may see more attention paid to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe other point I wish to raise arises in regard to the Amendment which the Government has put down on the Paper to the First Schedule, to insert the words "men in holy orders or regular ministers of any religious denomination." The proposal has caused a great deal of trouble, and in some cases it has been necessary to take the matter into the Court. Some men have claimed exemption on the ground that they have been regular ministers of a religious denomination. I think it is only fair that the Government should state precisely what these words mean. It is true that under the Sub-section in the Bill as it stands it is left to the Central Tribunal to interpret, but I think it would be an advantage to 282 have guidance from the Government itself, and we should know what instructions the Minister of National Service is going to give to his local representatives through out the country. There are a number of very obscure denominations in the country of which most of us have not heard, and while not having a ministry in the sense of the Baptists or the Congregational Church, many of these men who act as ministers still exercise their secular occupations, and that fact does not, so far as those denominations are concerned, deprive them of the character of regular ministers of religion. I would suggest that where the members of the denomination itself regard the applicant as a regular minister of their denomination, and it is easy to ascertain that from the official body of the denomination, then the exemption shall be granted. We want equality of treatment between all denominations, no matter how weak or obscure they may be, and the Government might make such, a concession.
§ Mr. WINGMay I ask the Home Secretary whether the deletion of this Sub section really does absolve the clergy and ministers of all denominations, or whether it does not really place the ministers of the country exactly on the same footing as any other citizen. So far as I have come into contact with those who represent religious thought, I do not think they desire any specific treatment, and they take their stand together with the ordinary citizens. I agree that by this action you are creating a very serious revulsion against those who represent religion, who will become a specially favoured class, because they happen to be ministers of religion. Therefore, in the interests of religion it would be better if they should take their stand with other citizens, and be placed on the same grounds, with the same exceptions, and stand their corner the same as every other man.
§ Mr. PRINGLENot in Wales.
§ Mr. BILLINGI should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say approximately how many men we shall lose under fifty years of age through this Clause? I understand that there are a number, or, in fact, a greater proportion, of ministers in Wales than in any other 283 part of the United Kingdom according to the population, and under these circum stances the Home Secretary might tell us how many men the Prime Minister is losing by introducing this Clause. One can only appeal, before taking so serious a step, that the Government should ascertain to what extent their proposal will affect the man-power of the country. So far as clergymen serving are concerned. I am quite sure that if they are given the opportunity it is feasible that those who wish can volunteer, and I am sure they would not like, as a class, exemption made in their case. I ask, in the event of this Clause not being carried and no exception being made in the case of clergymen, whether the right hon. Gentleman would place clergymen on the same footing as ordinary individuals, and enable them to be returned as Members of this House? At the present time a clergyman of the Church of England cannot be returned to this House without giving up Holy Orders. It is unfair to ask a clergyman to do what you are asking him unless he has all the privileges enjoyed by Members of this House.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONI hope the House will support the Government with regard to the exemption of clergy. I have listened to my hon. Friend opposite, and I submit that there are a good many of us who look upon it as repugnant to con script, ministers of religion. I myself am not a Quaker. I believe this is a just War and that we must exercise force for carrying on that operation, but I do believe in a general sense we recognise ministers of religion as serving the Master who stands for peace and for the advocacy of peace principles. I believe that if ministers of religion were more successful, both on the Continent of Europe and in this country, perhaps this great, tragedy might have been avoided. I hope that the general sense of the House will recognise that we have to play our part and that we desire that the clergy should uphold a higher ideal.
§ Sir G. CAVEIn answer to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), of course he is right in thinking that if we simply omit the Sub-section and leave this Bill as it stands the effect would be to subject ministers to the same obligations as other citizens. I have an Amendment later to leave them exactly where they are to-day.
§ Mr. DENMANAs this is a matter on which the Government hold strong views, will the Government leave this Amendment to the free vote of the House?
§ Sir G. CAVEI am afraid we cannot do that. In answer to the hon. Member for Cork, I would remind the House that there are many men of the class to whom he refers who are to-day of military age, and those cases have been dealt with in a reasonable spirit, and they have not been called up. I am quite sure that future cases will be dealt with in the same spirit. As to the meaning of the words in the existing Act, I think it is one that has already been thoroughly dealt with by the Courts. Everybody knows who comes within the words, and I do not think any further explanation is needed.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but there is some difference between the English and the Scottish Courts in dealing with this matter.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Sir G. CAVEI know that different decisions are given in the two countries. I quite agree with the remark that has been made that there are many ministers who would prefer not to be excepted from the Act, but in regard to this Sub-section which was put in the Bill we have, had a number of representations, some from ministers, some from the Salvation Army, and other bodies, pointing out that if we include ministers we shall gravely interfere not only with the religious ministrations through out the country, but with the services rendered by ministers in other ways. We have acted on those considerations—not at all on the considerations which the hon. and learned Member for Lanark suggested — by dropping this provision of the Bill. I may state I had in mind the dropping of this provision even before the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies) spoke, and I only waited to see someone supporting that view. We dropped the provision for the reason, also, that when you have included those whose ministrations are required in civil life and those who have conscientious objections or for reasons of health may not be able to serve, there were so few left that I do not suppose they would have formed a battalion of men, if all taken together. So few being left, we really thought it not worth while to run counter to the strong feeling of the country for so small an advantage as that. That was the reason of our decision.
§ Mr. ROWNTREEThere is just one point I would like to urge on the Home Secretary. It is true that conflicting opinions have been given as to who are ministers, but I hope that in the Regulations that are made in regard to this class, this difficulty will be got over. It is not correct to say that men are not ministers merely because they are not paid, and I sincerely hope that care will be taken with regard to that point, and that it will be recognised that some of the most useful religious ministration in this country is done by men who do not receive payment for it. I believe that there is now an opportunity of making such Regulations as will overcome difficulties that have been caused in the past.
Mr. E. HARVEYI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance on this paint. There are at least two religious bodies who depend, in so far as human ministration is concerned, entirely on unpaid preachers, and I think that we should have a clear statement on the point.
§ Sir G. CAVEWhile we may not be able to go to the full extent the hon. Gentlemen desire, I will take care to represent the point they raise.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI beg to move, in Sub section (3), to leave out the words "and Section eight."
The effect of this Sub-section as it stands includes returned prisoners of war who are liable to military service under this Bill, but the House will observe that there is a proviso in the Sub-section under which those prisoners of war who have been exchanged are exempted from military service, but those prisoners who have escaped, and have been able to return here, are now made, for the first time, liable to military ser vice under the Military Service Acts. There are two reasons why I suggest to the Government that the existing exemption should be continued. The first is that the withdrawal of the exemption will bring in a very small number of men. There are only a few of these men, and some of them have suffered a good deal during their imprisonment in Germany. As a general rule, they are not likely to be men who would be of much service 286 from a military point of view. But there is a second point, which is based on more general grounds. We have had issued recently a Report regarding the treatment of prisoners of war on the part of the German Government, and a very interesting document has been published recently on behalf of the Committee which has been investigating the treatment of prisoners. That Report has been used for propaganda purposes. Is it not obvious to the Government that it is going to diminish very much its own propaganda, if, at the very moment of the issue of this Report, it also introduces a Sub section into an Act of Parliament which makes those men, who have suffered all those cruelties, liable to Conscription? Does that not suggest to the House that the Germans will at once make a very obvious reply to the Report, "How can anybody believe those stories of the alleged sufferings and hardships of these men, who have been reduced to this terrible state of health, when they are to be conscripted by the British Government?" That is a general consideration which ought to enter into the minds of the Government in seeking to impose this provision. For these two reasons, that it affects only a small number of men, while the provision in the Bill would do something to entirely nullify the effect of the propaganda in regard to the cruel treatment of prisoners of war in Germany, I move the Amendment.
§ Mr. WINGI beg to second the Amendment.
No soldier or sailor who is discharged from the Navy or the Army, when no longer fit for service, ought to be included in a Bill of this kind, and a provision of this sort would destroy the Act of Parliament which gives them exemption. Be sides, the provision in the Bill would add to the inefficiency rather than the efficiency of the Army, while at the same time it would produce an exceedingly bad impression amongst those who have been discharged from the Army or the Navy, and who, having been so discharged, feel that they have again entered into ordinary life, and that they would be no more called upon. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the Minister of National Service.
Mr. TYSON WILSONI support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Lanark, who pointed out that very few men would be sacrificed. I am 287 told that a considerable number of men who have escaped and were eligible for the Army—I am referring to non-military men who escaped from Germany—have already enlisted, but I would point out that if men who have escaped should again be made prisoners, they would have a worse time on the second occasion than they experienced on the first. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment on the grounds already advanced.
§ The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir A. Geddes)I think there is some misunderstanding on the point of what is exactly the effect of the provision. There are several classes of persons who have been in the hands of the enemy, and who are now in this country. First, there is the class of persons who fell into the hands of the enemy as civilians, and who were released from one or other of the enemy countries through some arrangement entered into by His Majesty's Government. Such persons are at present excepted from the Act, and would under the proposals in this Clause continue to be excepted, so that there is no change in their case. Another class of persons who fell into the hands of the enemy consist of those who escaped as the result of their own action. That class at present is exempted, but would not have statutory exemption under the proposed arrangement. There is a third class of British subjects who have been in the hands of the enemy—soldiers and sailors, who have been taken prisoners, and who have escaped They were not under that exemption. They came back and rejoined the Service to which they belonged. Many men now serving with the Army have been for a short time in the hands of the enemy, and then have got back to their old life. It has never been suggested that such men should cease to serve in the Army. From that there is an unbroken series of cases leading up to the man who has been merely in the hands of the enemy for a few months, or a man who has been in their hands for some months and has escaped. If he belongs to the armed forces, he continues to serve. That is the position at present, and that will be the position in future. There is one rule about these men that has been carefully observed, that is, for example, if a man were taken prisoner on the Western Front and imprisoned in Germany and there 288 after escaped, he does not go back to the Western Front; he is sent to a garrison battalion in India or Egypt possibly, or wherever it may be, but he is not exposed to the liability to capture in the same theatre. That, I think, is fair. That is an administrative act which has been going on for months—I do not know when it began—and there is no proposal to modify that in any way whatsoever. Then we have the fourth class of persons who have been in the bands of the enemy, men who were soldiers who were captured after they had been wounded, who were imprisoned for a time in Germany, and who have been released through one of the neutral countries. They at present are excluded under Section 8 of the second Military Service Act. It this Bill in the form in which it now stands should go through the House and become law, they will be excluded under heading 3 in the Schedule.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEWhich Schedule?
§ Sir A. GEDDESThe First Schedule. So there is just the one class left that is affected. It is a class with which we have had great difficulty in dealing. There is a class of civilians who have been, for a short time, in the hands of the enemy, and who are now in this country. A large number of them, in faut, suffered no material hardship. A large number of them are already serving. But there is a. certain number of these men who have really done nothing special to help the country in the War except to meet with the accident of being taken prisoner, if that can be regarded as a help, and who are at the present time exceptions under the Act, without, as it appears to the Government, there being any real reason for their being excepted. That is the one small, limited class of persons who will be affected by the provision of this Sub section of the Clause. I call it a, small class. So it is in relation to the total number of men who are to be taken; but it is a class who, perhaps, have led to a good deal of trouble in administration, because there is no possibility of being absolutely certain that the claims of the individual are in fact correct. There is a number of men wandering about the country at the present time who claim that they were on board a ship which, let us say, was stopped by the "Karlsruhe" at the outbreak of war, who claim therefore that they were for the time being under 289 the control of the enemy, and who regard themselves as exempt from military service.
§ Mr. PRINGLEHow many of them?
§ Sir A. GEDDESI should say some hundreds. They are perfectly fit men who have done nothing for the country. The classes to which, we are indebted and under an obligation are adequately safe guarded even under the new provisions. It is only this small class which is affected, and it is a class which I do not think should receive special treatment.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEDo I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment? Because, if so, I hope that is not his final word. I do not think he gave a quite fair description of the sufferings of the men who have undergone imprisonment and who have escaped. It is true that they took no active part in the War, but that was not their fault. They were caught at the out break of war. Some of them have been in prison for more than three years, and they have been subjected to special hard ships of diet, sanitary conditions, close confinement, and deprivation.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI am sure my right hon. Friend will pardon me interrupting him, because we are obviously at cross purposes. The men of whom he speaks who come under the agreement are excluded by the provisions. These are the remaining men who would not be touched by the special provisions.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEWhat about the men who escaped from Ruhleben, and who, therefore, do not come under any convention or arrangement made with the German Government? I know some of those men, who have taken rather an active part in propaganda work, and who are specially, shall I say, objectionable to the German Government. Yet they are of military age, and if they were caught again as prisoners their fate would not be an enviable one. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not desire to subject men of that sort to the unfortunate fate which we all of us know is reserved for any prisoner who is objectionable to the German Government. I quite see the difficulty of my right hon. Friend's position, but I would seriously ask him to reconsider this matter and see whether something cannot be done in another place or even now to meet the hard case of men whose only obstacle in the way of serving their 290 country was that they were in Germany when the War broke out, and who had been subjected to the most cruel treatment, so that they have been rendered, as in one or two cases of which I know, absolute physical wrecks for the time being. If they are pressed into service again, and caught in Germany, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the fate to which they are doomed—he knows it much better than I do—is not one to which he would willingly subject anyone. I hope he will consider this question again.
§ Mr. HOGGEIf the right hon. Gentle man reads the Section in question, he will observe that there is nothing in the Amendment which he cannot accept. Section 8 says:
Nothing in this or the principal Act shall operate so as to render liable to military ser vice any person who has at any time since the beginning of the War been a prisoner of war, captured or interned by the enemy, and has been released or exchanged.The right hon. Gentleman observed that there are several hundred nomadic prisoners of war who were stopped by the "Karlsruhe." They would not come under this Section. That is not the type of man the House is troubled about at the moment. The man they are troubled about is the man who has been interned for some time or captured by the enemy, and has subsequently been either released or exchanged. As the right hon. Gentle man says, if he has been a soldier, he is sent to another theatre, and if he were captured he would be captured by a different enemy. That man, to a certain extent, is all right. But if the man has himself escaped and is of military age, and is conscripted after that hardship, whether he deserved it or not—I am assuming the fact that he is—if he be caught by the enemy, he is put up against the wall and shot. Surely, if a man has been an actual case of capture and internment and has subsequently escaped, we ought to do something to protect him. I have sufficient admiration for the abilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service to know that he can devise a means of seeing that the really genuine man is not put in that predicament. If he reads the Section which I have quoted, he will see it does not cover the man of the nomadic type to whom he referred. The right hon. Gentleman does not lose any thing by accepting the Amendment. He retains to himself and to the House a power which the House would like the Govern- 291 ment still to have. I do not think the House would like any of these men, after they were conscripted and caught, should suffer that further fate. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow these words to be deleted, so that the Section I have read to the House will still stand.
§ Mr. BILLINGSurely the right hon. Gentleman sees that the only people he is likely to capture under this provision are those who have actually succeeded in escaping. He does not get those who have been exchanged; he only gets the men who have shown exceptional courage—and I readily understand that it requires exceptional courage, because several of my acquaintances have escaped—in breaking through and getting out of Germany. When one remembers the conditions and treatment of those who endeavour to escape, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should treat them as he is doing. Those who sit tight and wait till they are ex changed are all right, while those who take their courage in both hands and dash back to this country and give it all the service they can—they are doing an immense amount of good in this country by quiet propaganda work among their friends and explaining to them what German kultur really is—are treated in this way. To call these men up and make this distinction in regard to them is a thing almost too unfair for even this Government to do.
§ Sir A. GEDDESI think we are talking at cross purposes at the present moment. The men who have escaped have never been excluded from the provisions of the Act. The men who have been captured and interned by the enemy and who have been released or exchanged are excluded. Therefore the man who has escaped is already liable. We are not changing the conditions; we are dealing with a man who, for example, was on board a ship in August or December, 1914, which was stopped by the "Karlsruhe" and for the time being was in the hands of the enemy, but was released on the ship being allowed to proceed on her way. I shall certainly consult the draftsman, because I do not want to touch those people, with whom we all sympathise. If I am wrong, we will certainly take action of the kind to which reference has been made. I am advised that the only people this power we pro pose to take will affect are men of the class to whom I am not now referring. They are not men who have escaped, but 292 men who were released and have got away and have not really been prisoners at all. In fact, they were never off their own ship, and never suffered any hardships, and were only in the hands of the enemy for a short time.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAlthough I am not satisfied, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.