§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the position of civilians towards belligerents. In a certain contingency there is no doubt that the relationship between civilians and belligerents may become a matter of the most vital importance, and, whether the contingency is remote or not, if it can be foreseen as possible it ought to be provided against. The reason why I have put this Question, which I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to answer, is that, so far as I have seen, there have been no regulations issued which are sufficiently plain to the ordinary citizen. 193 The necessity for some such statement is emphasised by this consideration. The systematised rules, which for convenience are called Rules of International Law, prevail not as regards individuals but as between States, and each State becomes at once liable to she charge of having violated these rules unless it does all that is practicable to secure that individual citizens should have knowledge of them and abide by their provisions. I think myself that the violation of International Law during a war is to be reprobated in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, we have had too much of it so far in the present war. I am anxious that in this country, even in times of stress and trial, every effort should ha made to secure that there should be no violation of what are the recognised international rules as between civilians on the one side and belligerents on the other. Of course, it is known generally that if a civilian as such becomes a combatant without. any other qualification, he is liable to what may be very severe punishment indeed—punishment because he is infringing, the international rule which has been laid down in order that war may be carried on in a more humane, manner as regards non-combatants than it was centuries ago.
The real position of a civilian is this. If he is attacked or wounded or subjected to what I may call the violence of war, he has a right to say that International Law has been infringed; but, on the other hand, if he purports to take any part in warfare he runs considerable risks. At the present, moment the rules under which non-combatant irregular forces my take part in war are laid down in Article I of The Hague Convention No. 4. In a certain sense the provisions are specific. But when we examine them as guides for the ordinary individual there is much left which ought to be filled up by some statement made by the Government. The first of those rules is this, that noncombatants or irregulars may put themselves in a position to have the advantages which are due to them when engaged in legitimate warfare if they are "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates." That is a very vague phrase, and it is necessary that the ordinary citizen should know what constitutes the conditions under which an irregular force of this kind is commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. In my 194 view any one in such a position ought to have a commission in some form direct from the Crown. It is exceedingly difficult to see under what other conditions a person in that position is really responsible for the subordinates whom for the time being at any rate he is going to command. When a very crucial and vital question may arise as to the violation of what are called the legitimate rules of warfare, people in this country are entitled to have precise information upon what a rule of this kind really means and how it ought to be applied.
I have had a large number of letters upon this very point, the question asked being under what conditions are civilians entitled to be regarded as combatants in the unfortunate event of an invasion of our country. I ask the Lord Chancellor, in the first instance, whether he will tell us, either now or in some circular which may be issued later by the Government, what is really meant, by the words "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates." The second rule of The Hague Convention No. 4 is not difficult to follow. It is that there must be a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance. I do not propose to dwell upon that point, because it is a matter which can probably be easily determined. The third rule is that the civilian, to have the protection which The Hague Convention will give him, has to carry his arms openly. That is sufficiently specific and does not need further elucidation. The last of the four rules laid down by The Hague Convention requires much more definition if it is to be of practical use as a guide for civilians who may desire to take up arms in defence of their country. It says, "Operations must be conducted in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Now what are the laws and customs of war which would protect a civilian if he complies with them, but which would render him subject to be punished summarily if he does not comply with them? I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether on a point of that kind far more information might not be available than has heretofore been given, in order that a due distinction may be raised between civilians who are complying with the rules of International Law and those who, by not complying with them, would not only-submit themselves to punishment but might commit the whole of the districts in which 195 they live to the horrors of war, from which, on other grounds, they ought to be free.
There is one other point to which I have to refer in order that I may completely review the matter we have to consider. In The Hague Convention it is recognised that before a territory is occupied—it is different after a territory has been occupied —the citizens are entitled to arise en masse in their protection, but even when they so arise they have to comply with two of the rules of The Hague Convention—that is to say, they have to carry their arms openly and conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It is of vital importance that the true position of civilians as against belligerents should be explained in a way that can leave no doubt upon the mind of the ordinary man. What is a civilian entitled to do, and what would render him liable to the severe punishments and penalties to which I have referred? Personally feel very strongly that civilians should he warned against taking any part in warlike operations unless they have been in some form enrolled under a recognised officer. Any step short of that may subject them to very great risks.
I should like to ask what is the position of the police and of special constables in a matter of this kind. In my view neither the police nor special constables would be justified, without having special authority conferred upon them, in taking any part in warlike matters; in other words, they would have the status of civilians. This is a matter of great importance. Suppose that the contingency should arise and it is necessary to have civilian forces to deal with civilian difficulties—and I know that counties likely to be affected are earnestly considering this question at the present moment. But if our constables and special constables are, as I have heard suggested, to be made into what is really a military combatant force, then we should lose the advantage of their assistance for civilian purposes just at the moment when that assistance would be most needed. I apologise for having said so much in asking this Question, but I could not explain more shortly the information which I desire to obtain on this matter, which is one of vital importance at the present moment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE)My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is well justified in raising this subject, which is one of importance, and if I cannot give him a specific and detailed answer on all points to-day he will recognise that it is for reasons of weight. The questions which he has raised have been under the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and their report on the subject has passed into the hands of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal the Secretary of State for War. My noble and gallant friend has himself taken this question in hand, and when the moment comes the instructions for which the noble and learned Lord asks will be given. It is not desirable that details should be published beforehand about things in respect of which there will be ample opportunity for making the arrangements when the time comes. But I may say that broadly the principle is that the military authorities should assume direction in this matter and should give directions to the civilian population. I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is not desirable that the police and special constables should be diverted from their proper purpose. They will no doubt have important functions to perform at a time of this kind and they should not be regarded as combatants. Their functions are quite different, and it would be only confusing those functions and diminishing the activities of these officers to divert them to other forms in which they may be probably less useful to the State.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saving that this question of the position of civilians is no longer in the vague condition in which it was formerly. It is regulated by The Hague Convention, to which he has referred, the first of those rules relating to the laws of war. That Convention divides itself into two parts—the rules which were agreed on as rendering it permissible for a civilian who is not a regular combatant to take part in war without exposing himself to the penalties attaching to irregular and illegitimate participation, and the provisions to regulate the case of a levee en masse to protect territory not yet occupied. The noble and learned Lord quite correctly laid down the conditions. He is no doubt right in suggesting that the person responsible for the direction of any corps of irregulars must be a person who has some recognition as repre- 197 senting the Crown—that is to say, he must be an officer appointed by the military authorities. At least, that is highly desirable, and, without it, it is impossible to be sure that the interpretation which would be placed upon the first of these rules would be generally accepted by other countries. Therefore I think the noble and learned Lord may assume that arrangements will be made which will prevent the irregular assembling in corps of the civilians of whom he speaks.
As regards the other point—a distinctive badge—steps have been taken to that end. Conforming to the laws of war, which is the important thing, is, after all, something that is not very difficult, because the laws of war are, contained in The Hague Convention and in the Handbook of Military Law. They are simple, and not very difficult to follow. The carrying of arms in an open fashion is practically one of them. It is put separately, but it is really one of the regulations under which warfare is to be conducted in modern times. As regards a levee en masse, that can only take place in the case of territory which has not vet been occupied, and there certain conditions, which the noble and learned Lord correctly defined, must be complied with. All these things have been under careful consideration, and are in the hands of the Secretary of State for War. The military authorities are busily engaged organising the defence of this country, and plans have been carried to a very detailed point. The question of what civilians are to do is one of those questions with which, of course, they have to deal, and in due time the Secretary of State for War will provide information in a public fashion which it is not desirable at the present; moment to discuss in detail.