Lords Sitting of 13 July 1916

LORD SOMERLEYTON.
The Right Honourable, Sir Savile Brinton Crossley, Baronet, K.C.V.O., having been created Baron Somerleyton of Somerleyton, in the County of Suffolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD GLENTANAR.
George Coats, Esquire, having been created Baron Glentanar of Glen Tanar, in the County of Aberdeen—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
CRAVEN ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163 a relating to Private Bills, he had on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees appointed Ernest Humbert, Esquire, of Field Court, Cray's Inn, London, Solicitor, as Guardian or Protector of the Infant Violet Lilian Craven, named in the Bill, to represent such Infant before the Committee on the Bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 22 (1916)—Note addressed by His Majesty's Government to Neutral Representatives in London respecting the withdrawal of the Declaration of London Orders in Council:
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—Agricultural Statistics, 1915. Volume L. Part II. Returns of Produce of Crops in England and Wales, with Summaries for the United Kingdom:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Army (Territorial Force)—Scheme made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of an Association for the County of Berks under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907:
Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891 (Conditional Licence)—Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home:
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907—Order, numbered D.I.P. 365, dated 28th June 1916, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be an infected area for the purpose of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1914:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Sandhurst).
OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Stanmore).

GORES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
HALIFAX CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): Your Lordships will be aware that the Royal Marines are engaged for a period of twelve years, and they can then be re-engaged for another period of nine years. Under Section 5 of the Royal Marines Act, 1847, either the

709
first or the second term could be extended by two years provided the marine was serving abroad. In November, 1914, a Bill was passed, through Parliament enabling a man who was serving anywhere, either at home or abroad, to have his service extended for that same period of two years. The proposal in the Bill now before your Lordships is to substitute for the period of two years the period of the war. No change is made in the conditions under which Marines are serving, and no new principle is involved. The object of the Bill is simply to meet the emergency which has been created by the war, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to substitute standard of calorific power for standard of illuminating power.
1.—(1) Where by virtue of any Act or Order confirmed by Act of Parliament regulating the undertaking of any company, authority, or person authorised to supply gas in any area in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the undertakers), the gas supplied by the undertakers is required to be of a prescribed illuminating power, and the undertakers are liable to penalties in the case of the illuminating power of the gas provided by them being less than, or being less by a prescribed extent than such prescribed illuminating power, then on application being made by the undertakers the appropriate Government department may, if they think it expedient, and subject to such conditions, if any, as they consider proper, by order—

(a) substitute for the prescribed standard of illuminating power a prescribed standard of calorific power;

(b) exempt the undertakers from penalties in respect of a deficiency in illuminating power and substitute for the provisions imposing such penalties provisions imposing penalties in the case of deficiency in calorific power; and

710

(c) substitute for the provisions as to testing for illuminating power provisions as to testing for calorific power;

and on the making of such an order the special Act or Order regulating the undertaking shall have effect as amended by the order.
(2) In considering the expediency of making such an order the department shall have special regard to whether the undertakers have erected and worked, or are prepared to erect and work suitable crude benzol recovery plant for the production of benzol and toluol.
(3) Before making an order under this section the appropriate Government department shall require the undertakers to give public notice in such manner as the department may consider best adapted for informing persons affected of the application for an order under this section, and of the calorific standard proposed to be adopted, and as to the manner in which and time within which objections may he made, and shall consider any objections which may be duly made, and shall where they think it expedient to do so hold an inquiry, and the costs (if any) incurred by the Department in connection with the inquiry shall be borne by the undertakers.
(4) For the purposes of this section "the appropriate Government department" means—

(a) in cases where the undertakers are a local authority, the Local Government Board or the Secretary for Scotland, or the Local Government Board for Ireland, as the case may be; and

(b) in any other case the Board of Trade.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved to insert additional words in subsection (1), immediately before paragraph (a). The noble Viscount said: The Amendment standing in my name is of a technical nature. It is the result of discussion between the experts, and I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 16, after ("proper") insert ("including such variation as they may think desirable of the prescribed pressure at which the gas is to be supplied").—(Viscount Churchill.)
LORD STANMORE: On behalf of the Government, I shall be very glad to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved to omit the word "special" ["the special Act or Order"] at the end of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Tins is merely a drafting Amendment to make the wording in this line correspond to the wording in the first line of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("special").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART II.) (MUNITION WORKERS) BILL.
MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FACILITIES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

YEOMANRY CADETS.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why cadets under training at a school who have applied for commissions in a particular unit should be posted to another unit or units without reference to the officer commanding who approved of their applications to join his unit, and whose nomination had been sanctioned and forwarded by the Territorial Force Association to the War Office.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): I have made it my business to inquire about these cadets. I find that they were good horsemen, and that this was a moment when officers were badly wanted for the Cavalry. These cadets expressed a wish to go to the Cavalry, and therefore it was considered that in the interests of the Service they should be allowed to go. I quite sympathise with the noble Lord. I am myself chairman of a Territorial Association, and I know how very desirable it is, if possible, to keep for the Association the cadets who are sent up through the Association, but in cases like this I think the noble Lord will agree that the country must come first, and if these cadets are urgently required for Cavalry regiments, they must be allowed, if they volunteer to do so, to go to them.
LORD LAMINGTON: I cannot see why these cadets, who had been under training and were admittedly good horsemen, should have been allowed, to go to a Cavalry regiment. There are plenty of officers,
712
good horsemen, who have been undergoing training for a year and a-half in the 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments. Almost every one of these officers wants to go to the Cavalry, but this has been refused because these regiments are short of officers. These men had been a trouble to get. They had been nominated by the Territorial Association, and I consider that they were part of our regiments although they had been sent to the school for training. I submit that there is no reason why the War Office should step in and allow them to be diverted to another unit when they properly belong to the regiment which they had originally selected. If there is a case for allowing the officers in question to go to a Cavalry regiment, every officer in the 2nd Line Yeomanry ought to be allowed to go. They all want to go, but one has to refuse them because there are no other officers. I do not consider the answer which the noble Earl has given at all satisfactory. Certainly it is very unfair on those who have been to the trouble of getting these officers to allow them, simply because they wish to go, to be diverted to another unit. Will the noble Earl represent that point to the authorities?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I will represent it, certainly.
LORD LAMINGTON: But will he do something to get us officers?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I cannot attempt for one minute to interfere with the military authorities when they take a step which they think right in the interests of the Army as a whole.

YEOMANRY AND HOME DEFENCE.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unsatisfactory answer previously given, it is still intended that 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments composed of men who have taken the Imperial Service obligation are to be kept for home defence.
The noble Lord said: These 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments are composed of men many of whom have had a year and a-half's training, and they have been rather grievously treated. First they were not given horses, and then they were given a superabundance of horses, which interfered with their training; and they have been

713
inadequately trained in many ways. These men enlisted for foreign service, but they are being kept for home defence. They say they want to go abroad "on their hands and knees" if only they can get there. Instead, they are relegated to home defence. My own opinion is that after the naval battle off Jutland it is very unlikely that there will be any attempted raid on these shores for many months to come. These men feel that they are frittering away their time at home after undergoing training. Week by week, every day almost, men are returning from abroad who have been wounded, perhaps more than once. Many of these men are ready to do their duty to their country, but do not wish to go abroad again. They have gone through the great stress of modern war, and though they may be reluctant to go abroad again they would be willing to do their duty to their country at home. Why not form, corps or regiments of these men for home defence? Give them six months' or a year's rest at home, and allow the men of 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments who enlisted with the definite object of serving oversea to go abroad. I can assure the noble Earl that these men feel bitterly their present position.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Certain 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments have already been allotted to Divisions proceeding oversea as Divisional Cavalry, but other 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments must be kept at present for home defence, although circum stances may alter which may enable them to go abroad. I am afraid I cannot in any way agree with the noble Lord's proposal, which seems to me a very curious one, that we should take individuals as they come back from the Front—
LORD LAMINGTON: Not, individuals necessarily.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Lord said individuals. He said men who came back invalided from the Front. You do not invalid regiments from the Front, but individuals. To take them and put them into an unorganised unit would seem to me to be a very poor substitute for 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments. At the present moment the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief at home requires these regiments, and I think that as long as he requires them it will be impossible for any influence other than military to take them away from him. We must give him all the men that he
714
requires. In saying that, I do not mean in the least that I do not sympathise with the 2nd Line Territorial regiments, who are only too anxious, as I know, to go abroad; but it is again a question of the Army as a whole and the defence of the country as a whole, and as long as the military opinion is, as it is at the present moment, that it is indispensable to keep these 2nd Line Yeomanry regiments at home, I am afraid I can hold out no hope to the noble Earl that there will be any alteration in the present arrangement.
LORD LAMINGTON: I was glad to hear the noble Earl say "at present." That will give these men some hope of being employed oversea at some time.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Any troops that can be spared and can be sent abroad will undoubtedly be so sent.

EMPLOYMENT OF ALIEN PRISONERS.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Paymaster-General whether he has any further information to give to the House as to the present employment of prisoners of war and interned civilians. I suggest that if there is now some machinery by which prisoners can be employed, it should be more widely advertised, so that people should know where to apply to obtain the services of these prisoners.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I am afraid that I have not much to add to the statement which I made in reply to my noble friend some two months ago. As my noble friend is well aware, the prisoners in this country consist of two categories—military and civilian. With regard to the military, there are I suppose at the present moment, including the recent captures which have been made, about 20,000 German soldiers and sailors in our hands. With regard to their employment, the following steps have been taken. There are at the present moment being formed, under the auspices of the Home-Grown Timber Committee, eleven camps. Four of these are actually in operation, three are in process of formation, and four are under consideration. It is calculated that the number of men who will be employed in these eleven camps when they are all in operation will be about 1,500, the numbers employed in each camp varying roughly from 110 to 150. These military

715
prisoners are also being employed in quarries on waterworks, and road-making. Employment of this nature has been sanctioned, I understand, for about 1,600, and work for another 1,500 has been applied for As I explained on the former occasion, in the vicinity of the large established camps a certain amount of local work has been found for prisoners who are detained there. As I also explained, these men are largely employed inside the camps on duties connected with camp administration, and they make, for instance, such articles as mail bags, of which a very large quantity has been turned out. I might add that they are paid for their work according to the scale of working pay laid down in the case of British soldiers.
In addition to the men whom I have mentioned, as the noble Lord probably recollects, a considerable number of German prisoners have been sent by us to France and are working at unloading ships. This experiment was due to the action of the late Secretary of State for War. It has had, I am sorry to say, one unfortunate result, because, although these men who have been-sent to France are not, I understand, employed in any way in contravention of The Hague Convention, and are superintended by British Officers and non-commissioned officers, the German Government, for some reason or other, seized upon this action as an excuse for retaliation; and as I explained to the House the other day, the Germans have consequently sent a large number of our men to occupied Russian territory, and these men are now working, so far as we know, in the ports of Libau and Windau. We have reason to believe that they are being extremely badly treated, and up to now, in spite of reiterated requests, the officials of the American Embassy have not been allowed to pay visits to these places. It will be observed that there still remains a large margin of 10,000 or 12,000 unemployed military prisoners in our hands.
The civilian prisoners, of course, are much more numerous. There are, roughly speaking, something like 32,000 of these men, and the only new development with regard to their employment which I have to record since I made the last statement on the subject is that a new camp is in process of formation, where engineering work of a very technical character is going to be provided for a certain number. It is work which has no connection whatever with the operations of war. It is hoped
716
that this camp will be at work shortly. As regards the employment of interned civilians generally, I made a fairly full statement two months ago. I must admit that the employment of interned civilians is no part of my business, but nevertheless I was so scandalised at the spectacle of these thousands of men being unemployed that I could not help making representations to the various Departments concerned, and I am afraid I have become thoroughly obnoxious to them in consequence. I am bound to say that my efforts, possibly uncalled for, have met in almost every case with ignominious failure. I cannot point to success anywhere. But I think it right to say that this failure of employment is not in reality due to the Departments concerned. I attribute it entirely to the stupidity and ignorance which prevails in this country and which is fostered and pandered to by a certain section of the Press and certain individuals.
My noble friend asks me why there is no greater publicity with regard to opportunities for employment. I think it just as well to be, perfectly frank with my noble friend and to tell him the reason. The reason is this, that if too great attention were drawn to this matter it would in all probability cause considerable labour trouble. This opposition to the employment of these men—the employment, mind you, not of Germans, but of what I may call friendly aliens—is all the more unintelligible for this reason. If it were proposed to employ these men on a system of cheap labour and to undersell labour in the ordinary labour market, there would be something to be said against it; but as it is proposed to employ these men only during the period of the war, and as, in addition, it has never been suggested that they should be paid other than the standard local wages, it is quite unintelligible to me that there should be opposition of any kind whatsoever.
What does astonish me is the extraordinary ignorance which prevails with regard to the whole question of aliens. Many people seem to be quite unable to distinguish between nationalities. Every alien, whether interned or not, is in their language a Hun. Apparently there are a large number of people in this country who, if an earthquake were to occur here to-morrow, or if we were to suffer a serious naval disaster, or if General Haig and his whole staff were taken prisoners, would at once raise the cry, "Put every Hun behind

717
barbed wire, and all will be well." As an instance of the kind of ignorance which prevails with regard to these men, I may quote the case of a chief constable. In describing an alien under his charge he said, "I cannot for the life of me make out what this man is. He cannot even speak Austrian."
It is not the case that individuals are unwilling to employ these men. I receive constant applications from people who say they want to employ them. I admit that I have instigated certain friends of my own to make application for the employment of these so-called friendly aliens, but in almost every case it has proved to be a failure. I induced my noble friend the Leader of this House to avail himself of this source of labour, but as soon as the rumour got about my noble friend, if I am not mistaken, was threatened with a strike of something like 100,000 men. Another noble Lord with whom I am acquainted said he would like above all things to get some of these aliens to work for him." I have a private prison." he said, "in which I could keep them if that were thought advisable." This noble Lord has had no more success than my noble friend behind me. Then I have another friend, not a member of this House but a gentleman who farms 7,000 or 8,000 acres. He knew nothing about aliens, but the moment he beard that there were such persons as friendly aliens in existence he said, "For Heaven's sake let me have some. I could take any number from fifty to a hundred." I have not the smallest hope that my friend's request will be acceded to, because he lives in one of the home counties, and it would be feared that if it were known that he was employing a large number of friendly aliens, who are sure to be designated as Huns, there would be great trouble in labour circles and in other directions. I had an application the other day from an unfortunate man in Ireland. "Everybody has turned against me," he wrote, "nobody is allowed to work for me. Could you not get me some aliens, whether friendly or not, to come and work for me?" I have not answered that gentleman's letter, because owing to the state of Ireland I fear that the Home, Office would be extremely reluctant to take any action in this matter. Therefore I say that almost all my efforts have met with conspicuous failure.
But I still persevere with my efforts. There are a few persons who have been
718
sufficiently bold and enterprising to employ a few of these men, I believe with the happiest result. I cannot help thinking that when a shortage of labour really does arise—it seems impossible to believe that there can be a shortage of labour when you find such a source of supply as this neglected in this way—people will begin to learn a little common sense from the example of other countries, Germany included, and that some employment may be found for these men. Rut in the meanwhile I confess I feel considerably disheartened; and unless more intelligence is displayed before long, I fear that the end of the war will find us in possession of thousands of these men still behind barbed wire, demoralised and perhaps ruined and broken in health, who will constitute a serious difficulty with which we shall have to deal.

WAR OFFICE AND THE HAY CROP.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to call attention to the terms on which His Majesty's Government propose to take over the whole of the hay and straw crop of 1916. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am anxious to bring this question to the notice of your Lordships' House as soon as possible, because it seems to me that there is a new precedent involved, and that for the first time we have the Government setting maximum prices on articles, not which they want entirely for themselves, but for the general market also. I have no statistics to give with regard to straw, but I am informed that about 14,000,000 tons is the amount of hay supposed to constitute an ordinary hay crop. I understand that of that amount the Government will require 1,000,000 tons; so that a very large amount of hay is affected besides that which is required for Government purposes.
Then we come to the question of price. I think it is worth considering how the price, whatever it may be, has been arrived at. There are forage committees in various districts, but although those committees have been consulted and are occasionally quoted as having agreed to a price, I know cases where, although they have been so quoted, they have not agreed to a price; and I do not think the head forage committee at the War Office has acted seriously on the recommendations of the local committees. It seems to me, with regard to hay, that they have consulted the hay

719
dealers rather than agricultural interests. We had in the case of wool an example of the way in which agricultural interests have been considered by the Government. I believe that no agriculturists were consulted in regard to that, and at the price that it is now proposed to offer farmers will suffer a loss of 3d. per lb. on their wool compared with what would be received if the 1915 prices had been given. It seems to me that the middleman has been too much consulted.
No doubt when once you interfere with freedom of contract difficulty and injustice arise, and it is the duty of the Government to be particularly careful to see that whenever they take such a step as this there is no injustice committed. The price of hay ought to be regulated by the price of feeding-stuffs at the time, and previous prices ought not to be considered. If the price of feeding-stuffs is high at the time, the price of hay ought to be put on a similar basis. At the present moment I understand that the maximum price for hay has been fixed at £5 10 s. per ton; oat straw, £3; and wheat straw, £2 10 s. There is nothing said as to whether that is supposed to be a flat rate all round, or whether there is to be a lower price given for hay than this. If there is a lower price given, I do not see any statement as to how that is to be arrived at. Is it left to the discretion of some military officer, who may be painstaking on the part of the War Office, but who may be no judge of hay. And if disputes arise between him and the farmer who is selling, I do not see any provision for an appeal.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the allowance that is made to hay and straw dealers. On the prices which I have quoted a regular dealer is allowed to make a profit of £2 per ton on hay, and 30 s. on straw. Taking that at the maximum prices, he is allowed to make 36 per cent. on hay, 50 per cent. on oat straw, and 60 per cent. on wheat straw. It is true that he has to cut up and truss the hay for that, but when you consider that there is a possibility of hay being sold at a less price than the one I have quoted, the margin given to dealers is excessive and ought to be reconsidered. If there is to be this margin, more of it ought to be allowed to go to the agriculturists. I should like to ask whether, if a farmer is at the trouble of cutting up and trussing his hay and taking it to the station himself, he is
720
allowed to take the benefit of the £2 or not. I have heard it supposed that he is, but I should like to have some confirmation from the noble Earl if he can give it to me.
Then there is a curious clause in the Defence of the Realm Consolidated Regulations, 1911–16, which states that producers who are also distributers—
"will apply for authority to distribute, accompanied by a declaration of the quantities sold by them to private consumers during the twelve months prior to the issue of the Army Council Order, and also with their licence to sell."
THE EARL OF DERBY: What is the date of that Order?
VISCOUNT GALWAY: There is no date. I will hand the Order to the noble Earl. [The document was passed across the Table to Lord Derby.] It really is puzzling to know absolutely what is intended by that clause, because if it is meant that a farmer is to be allowed to sell only a similar quantity to that which he sold last year it seems to me that the authorities at the War Office, or whoever drew up this Order, must be strangely ignorant of affairs connected with agriculture, because everybody knows that we had last year about the worst hay crop very nearly in the memory of man. Therefore to say that what a farmer sold last year can be any criterion as regards this year is most unjust and unfair to the agricultural interest. It seems to me that the agricultural interest is not sufficiently considered in these matters, certainly it is not so much considered as are other interests. A great many attacks have been made on agriculturists, but people forget that there is not only reduced labour and increased wages, but other matters such as the increased prices which the agriculturist has to pay for his stock, the high cost of tillages, and the high extra cost of feeding-stuffs. Therefore although some writers seem to think that the farmer is getting a high price for certain articles, it must be remembered that he does not, when all these other items against him are considered, get that enormous profit which some people appear to imagine.
I would also ask your Lordships whether it is not right and fair that the agriculturist should get the fair market price for what he has to sell. Certainly it seems to me unfair, while the hay crop is still being

721
cut, to endeavour to fix a flat rate of payment on the basis of the last twelve months. Surely it would be much fairer to wait until we know what the hay crop is. But what I would like to put to His Majesty's Government is this. It would be fairer for them to say at once that they require 1,000,000 tons of hay, or what the quantity is that they want, and take the necessary steps to see that they get it; and then after a fair and satisfactory price has been fixed the hay could be allowed to stay in the farmers' stockyards if delivery is not wanted at once, but it should be paid for immediately it is purchased. When this has been done, the rest of the hay crop should be left in the hands of the farmers for them to sell in the open market. Surely that is the fairer procedure, instead of trying to fix a flat rate now, thereby giving an unfair bonus to hay and straw dealers. I regret that my noble friend who has just been appointed to the Board of Agriculture is not in his place to-night, as I should have liked to congratulate rum on his appointment and at the same time tell him that agriculturists feel that they will have an energetic man at their head. I hope he will take this matter up as soon as possible and support us. In the meantime I trust that the noble Earl who is going to answer me will be able to give a favourable reply to some of the questions I have put.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I frankly confess to the noble Lord that I am unable to give him an answer at the present moment. The arrangement was made before I took over office, and it has only just been brought to my notice. I have been given the reasons why this arrangement has had to be come to, but I do not think I need trouble the House by reading them. I shall be most happy to show them to the noble Lord privately. At the same time I want him to understand that these arrangements were made on the recommendation of the Forage Committee, which has amongst its members several practical farmers. It is on their advice and with their sanction that this arrangement has been arrived at. The noble Lord has put certain questions to me which I frankly confess I cannot at the moment answer, but I have made a note of them and will either communicate the answers to him privately or give them in reply to a further Question in this House. It would certainly seem that there are many points that want looking into, and, with
722
the noble Earl who is now at the head of the Board of Agriculture, I will look into them and try and give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer on the earliest possible occasion.

MILITARY SERVICE—CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to ask His Majesty's Government for an explanation as to the retrospective bearing of the statement made in both Houses of Parliament on June 29 respecting the treatment of conscientious objectors to military service.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, when a week ago [July 4] there was some little discussion upon the subject of the arrangement made for dealing with the problem of the conscientious objector, reference was made to—indeed, the whole discussion rested upon—the statement made by the Prime Minister in the other House on June 29 and repeated in this House on the same evening; but the discussion did not elucidate the points of difficulty which arose in the minds of many of your Lordships as to the exact meaning of the Prime Minister's statement. Indeed the two noble Lords who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government on that occasion seemed to me to be in the same doubt as to the exact meaning of the phraseology. The simple point that I am anxious to get made perfectly clear is whether or not the arrangement foreshadowed by the Prime Minister is retrospective or not. The words are capable of being construed either way. I do not know whether the document has yet been issued in a formal shape; if so, I have not seen it, and I have been obliged to rely on the statement as it appears in the Parliamentary records of both Houses. But I shall be glad if His Majesty's Government can give us a perfectly clear statement, apart from the question of technical rules, as to whether or not the promise given by the Prime Minister with regard to the treatment of these men relates not only to those who now come under its provisions, but to those who have already been dealt with and placed in a position which is felt to be possibly an unfair one, and from which every one of your Lordships would desire, if it be an unfair one, they should be extricated.
I am anxious to say again that in asking this Question I am not in the slightest

723
degree implying censure or criticism of the action of the Tribunals, still less of the action of the higher authorities who have had to revise in some eases what the Tribunals have done. I believe the Tribunals to have discharged a difficult task with conspicuous fairness, and I am not in the least suggesting that they desire to act otherwise than with perfectly reasonable consideration towards men whom it is almost impossible to know how to handle because of the inconsistency and the apparent incompatibility with the elements of citizenship of the professions they are putting forward. In a document which has been sent to me, and no doubt also to many of your Lordships, it is stated to be a grievance now that this statement does not solve the problem, because a large number of these men cannot conscientiously undertake work of national importance as an alternative to military service. Well, a man who will not undertake work of national importance as an alternative to military service is putting himself outside the pale of citizenship; he is simply placing himself in a position for which no defence can reasonably be brought forward by men who are looking upon public duties as part of the responsibility of citizens in a civilised country. A man who is claiming the protection of the Police and makes other claims, but declines to take alternative work because it is an alternative to military service, is deliberately putting himself into a position in which consideration for him is rendered impossible, or, at any rate, most difficult.
But none the less we desire to know what is the position of men who are now in detention or are imprisoned, and who would not have been so had this Order been issued some months before. That question does seem to me to call for an answer; and I venture to hope we may have it, freed from technicalities, which are extraordinarily difficult to follow, with reference to Rules and Regulations. I am sure your Lordships will acquit me of the slightest desire to shield these men from the consequences of an action which, as I have said before, seems to place them outside the category of ordinary citizenship. But a conscientious objector is something a little different from that in some cases; and it is for the reasons I have given that I should like to have an answer to the Question I have put upon the Paper.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think your Lordships and the country generally will be obliged to the most rev. Primate for the pronouncement he has made with regard to those who are now attempting to carry their conscientious objection to the extreme length that they cannot even undertake national service in lieu of military service. I hope to be able to answer the most rev. Primate's Question in a manner that will be satisfactory to him. Every conscientious objector who has been sentenced to imprisonment—whenever sentenced, that is—has been sent (or the order has gone for him to be sent) to a civil prison, and his case has been or will be immediately submitted to the Central Appeal Tribunal. There are, however, conscientious objectors at the present moment undergoing detention. They fall into two categories—those who while under detention are obeying the military commands given to them, and those who refuse to obey the military commands. I will deal with the second first. Those who have refused to obey the commands are being brought to trial by Court-Martial, and if convicted they will come under the new scheme and be transferred to civil custody and their case will be dealt with by the Central Appeal Tribunal. As to those who, though conscientious objectors, are whilst undergoing detention obeying the military orders, we feel that they ought not to be in a worse position than those who are disobeying orders. The intention, therefore, is to inquire into all their cases also, just in the same way as in the other class. I hope this answer will be satisfactory to the most rev. Primate.

THE MESOPOTAMIA PAPERS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am really sorry again to return to the question of the Mesopotamia Papers, but there is the most serious feeling in both Houses of Parliament that the question of the laying of these Papers should now be finally settled. I am the last person to suggest, especially with regard to the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Crewe), that every word that has been said about these papers has not been said in good faith. But they have been promised over and over again, and I cannot help saying that all of us who have had experience—and there are many in this House—of the laying of Parliamentary Papers are astonished that at the last moment, on questions of

725
so very vital an order, difficulties should have arisen with regard to publication, which, if they were to arise, at all, unquestionably ought to have arisen and been faced many weeks ago. Meantime Parliament has put off the discussion of really serious evils which have been going on until quite recently in Mesopotamia, in the hope that they would have official information on which to discuss the whole question.
What I put to the noble Marquess is this. I understand that he is not in a position to give a definite answer, as he had hoped, this afternoon. But might we be told clearly, when he makes the statement, first, whether the Government can lay the Papers or not, and, if not, whether they cannot lay such portions of the Papers as refer to the failure of the supply of transport, hospitals, and the like, leaving all questions of policy and all the military questions out of the Papers, if their publication is judged to be detrimental to the interests of the country. I would urge on the noble Marquess that he should not next week ask us again to defer our observations to a later date. We desire to have the opportunity, not of putting the Government in a difficulty, but of controlling what is going on at this moment and endeavouring to see that the supplies which ought to have been given to the troops are now given, even if they have not been given before. We are in a position to bring forward evidence that much is going on of which we as Englishmen are heartily ashamed, in view of the climatic conditions there and the difficulties under which our troops labour. We were encouraged to hope that we could discuss this by the middle of June. We are now in the middle of July, and to-day your Lordships adjourn for five more days. Every day is vital; and even on Tuesday we shall probably be told that a further adjournment is necessary. I would ask the noble Marquess, if the Government cannot issue Papers on Tuesday, to tell us—I ask it in the public interest—whether there cannot be at once an Inquiry which may satisfy themselves and the public that all precautionary measures have been taken.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I had the opportunity this morning of reading three or four very long letters from officers who have been serving in Mesopotamia, and I can assure your Lordships that
726
the cruelties which our men have suffered through the utter incompetence of the authorities both in India and here are simply too disgraceful. We all know what the Belgians suffered; we know what our own men suffered who were taken prisoners at the beginning of the war by the Germans—Germans are savages and nothing else was to be expected from them—but our men have suffered even worse from the brutality of the way things have been managed in Mesopotamia. What they have suffered is perfectly indescribable, and it makes one hardly able to speak of it. In one case a thousand wounded soldiers were sent down in a ship with only one medical officer and one orderly to look after the lot of them. They were all mixed up together, officers, men, and native soldiers, men with dysentery and men with shattered limbs, and there was not a drop of morphia or of chloroform in the whole ship. One officer never had his wound dressed from the time he was picked up until he got to Bombay. There are hundreds of other instances I could give, but I have been asked not to speak further on the subject because there is going to be a debate. I can assure your Lordships that it is the most disgraceful thing I have ever read. Who is to blame, God knows. There must be somebody to blame. And as for India, I think the person in command of the troops there is terribly to blame, from what I can hear.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, since the noble Viscount opposite last raised this question I have been in consultation with more than one of my colleagues in regard to it. I must thank the noble Viscount for having acquitted me of any desire for, or indeed even of any toleration of, undue procrastination or delay in this most important matter. It is evident from what fell from my noble friend who has just sat down that the feelings of many, both in this House and out of it, are deeply stirred by what they have heard. As the noble Viscount anticipated, I am not able to make any statement to-day beyond this—that as the result of my conversations with my colleagues I understand that the Prime Minister will make a statement in another place regarding Papers on Tuesday, and I would ask noble Lords to allow me to make one on the same day. The Prime Minister's statement, and mine, will also apply to another subject which, although it has not aroused so much interest

727
here as has the question of Mesopotamia, has excited marked interest in another place—namely, the question of the presentation of Papers with regard to the Dardanelles operations. I have noted the point which was made by my noble friend opposite (Lord Midleton) as to the possibility of drawing a distinction between Papers dealing with military operations which may in certain cases be regarded as dangerous to publish—more especially in cases where operations in the neighbourhood are not entirely concluded—and Papers dealing with questions of supply, transport, and the medical service. I will inquire whether it is possible to draw such a distinction. I must beg, however, to be excused from entering on the subject further to-day; and I hope that my noble friend, who I fully admit has shown all possible patience in the matter, will be content to wait until we are able to speak on Tuesday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we should, of course, not dream of pressing the noble Marquess further this evening. But I think we ought to say, in order that your Lordships should not be under a misapprehension, that even if the Government find they cannot present Papers—which I think would be deplorable—on Tuesday, we can hold out no hope that the debate will be avoided.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a stage when public opinion gets to such a point that debate is really inevitable, and any one who listened to the noble Duke behind me just now will see the kind of thing which is being said far and wide and being felt throughout the country. I should like to add, in order to emphasise the point, that one of the circumstances to which my noble friend behind me, Lord Midleton, just now alluded took place as late as May 7 last, so that it is not old history, but a continuing evil. These things may turn out not to be true. I should be very sorry to endorse them. But the Government must face the fact that unless they are willing to come into the open and tell us the facts, these sort of things will go on being said and do infinite harm. If they are true, the sooner the matter is dealt with the better, so that severe measures can be dealt out to those responsible and steps taken to ensure that they will never occur again. It is not by way of any threat that I say this. But I do not wish the Government or your Lordships to be under the misapprehension that, if Papers cannot be presented, the debate will not take place. I am afraid the debate will have to go on notwithstanding.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.