Lords Sitting of 15 March 1916

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following substituted Bill have been complied with:
North British Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Motion for the Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday next.
RIVER GLEN BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—

No. 5564. Cuba (Island of Cuba, years ended 30th June 1913 and 30th June 1914):

No. 5565. Brazil (Pernambuco, 1914);

No. 5566. Denmark (Faroe Island and Iceland, 1914)

Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ministry of Munitions—The Munitions Tribunal (Ireland) Rules, 1916, for constituting and regulating Munitions Tribunals in Ireland, made in pursuance of Section 15 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, as amended by the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, by the Lord Lieutenant as far as relates to offences and the enforcement of Orders, and by the Minister of Munitions as far as relates to other matters:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Wales) 1916, dated 9th March 1916:
Navy (Pay)—List of exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay and Allowances, sanctioned
388
by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty with the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to the Order in Council, dated 19th December 1881, during the year 1914–1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE DANISH AGREEMENT.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries.

2. Whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement.

3. Whether in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement it ought not to be abrogated.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already occupied your Lordships' time at considerable length in regard to the Danish Agreement, but since the subject was last discussed certain matters have arisen which I venture to say fully justify the action that was taken by speakers in this House in the former debate in condemning the advisability of this Agreement. It will be most convenient, I think, if I deal separately with each of the three Questions standing in my name.
With regard to my first Question, your Lordships are aware that under the Danish Agreement agents were to be appointed in Norway and Sweden who were to be responsible for the re-exports to those countries; they were to be there as a security that these re-exports would be used exclusively for Norwegian and Swedish consumption, and would not be passed on for German consumption. Since the Danish Agreement was discussed in this House, Norway and Sweden have both declined to permit the appointment of these agents by the two Danish associations which were named in the Danish Agreement, and they have done so for reasons which appear to me, and which I think will so recommend themselves to your Lordships, as of a very reasonable character. Norway and Sweden take up this position, first of all, on com-

389
mercia1 grounds. They say that such agents, if not actually Danes, would be associated with Danish trading or commercial companies, and they would thereby obtain an unfair commercial advantage over Swedes or over Norwegians as the case may be. I do not think it is necessary to labour that point. The position would be exactly this, that the importers of a foreign country would be in possession of privileges which were denied to local importers. That is the objection on the part of the Norwegian and Swedish Governments to accepting the setting up of these Danish agents. Then there is another point, one which affects the amour propre of the countries themselves. They regard this—and I think it is difficult to regard it otherwise—as an infringement of the sovereignty of their countries. They say—it seems to me with good sense and reason—Why should England make an arrangement with Denmark as to what goods should go to Norway and Sweden from England? I am informed, and I believe it is the case perhaps the noble Marquess, in his reply, will be able to throw some light upon this matter—that the Swedish Ministry are contemplating introducing, if they have not already introduced, a Bill to prohibit any corporation or individual from carrying on business under an Agreement with a foreign country without the sanction of the Swedish Government.
In my second Question I ask whether an goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. The goods that were allowed to pass into Germany under those provisions are generally known to comprise cocoa, coffee, and fruit, among other articles. I do nut want on this occasion, except incidentally, to refer to the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, but I am not stating what is untrue when I say that the issue of that Order in Council a year ago has had the effect for a long time of completely deceiving the public. The fact is that certain distinguished officials in the Foreign Office thought much more of their intellectual abortions, like the Declaration of London, than they did of the interests of the war and of the country in this matter. I am not exaggerating when I say that they invented, with consummate ingenuity, a system which should give to the Navy the appearance, and at the same time prevent them from getting the substance, of what they asked.
390
I rejoice that the whole of this blockade business has been placed in the charge of Lord Robert Cecil, with a distinguished Admiral to help him. I do so if it means —and I have every reason to believe that it does—that this matter will be taken by the Admiralty out of the feeble hands of the Foreign Office. A change of policy and not a reshuffling of officials is the really vital and essential point in this matter. But, my Lords, a great deal has to be done. I am going to give your Lordships only one set of figures. They are extremely eloquent, and I have every reason to know that they are accurate; and if the noble Marquess cares to ask me privately I can tell him the source from which I got them. These figures show that during November last the actual imports into Denmark of cocoa, coffee, and fruit—three articles mentioned in the Danish Agreement—amounted to about 14,000,000 lbs., whereas the normal imports for that month in an ordinary year never exceeded 7,000,000 lbs. There is, therefore, still a great deal of leeway to be made up in meeting the real necessities of the case and excluding all articles from either entering or leaving Germany.
I now conic to my third and last Question, in which I ask whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—"denounced" is the technical word, but I used "abrogated" because I thought it would better convey my meaning to people outside. I understand that at the present moment there are two Danish gentlemen in London actively engaged in negotiating in regard to the Danish Agreement. May I ask the noble Marquess whether Parliament will be consulted before anything is finally concluded in regard to these negotiations? It will certainly be very disquieting to feel that again negotiations are being carried on, and that Parliament and the public, who have such a great, and vital interest in this question, should have no means of knowing what is going on or of being consulted until the thing has been settled and done with. As regards the antagonism referred to in my Question, I understand that Sweden and Norway have refused to allow Danish agents to be appointed in their countries to control the re-exported goods. What I want to know is, As Norway and Sweden object to the appointment of these agents what. remains of the Danish Agreement?

391
Is it to be the case that in future Denmark is to be allowed to re-export goods to any one in Norway and Sweden, who will probably, I should say almost certainly, see that the goods, in view of the inducement of higher prices, go direct to Germany instead of being used, as was intended, for Norwegian and Swedish consumption only? These three Questions I beg to put to His Majesty's Government, and I trust that the noble Marquess may be able to enlighten the House and the country upon this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should reply at once to the three Questions which the noble Earl has put upon the Paper. It will be in his recollection and in that of your Lordships that this subject was very fully debated not many days ago on two separate evenings in this House. Upon that occasion we made it perfectly clear that we had no intention either of publishing the Danish Agreement or of allowing ourselves, by the kind of cross-examination to which the noble Earl likes to subject us, to be led to make disclosures which would give to the public the very information which, for the present at any rate, we desire to withhold. Negotiations are proceeding at this moment—the noble Earl himself is evidently well aware of the fact—and I venture to say that nothing could be more detrimental to the public interest than that we should be required to discuss the details of the matters which are under negotiation or to make a statement which might possibly throw a doubt upon the sincerity of oar policy.
The noble Earl asks me, in the first place, whether as originally contemplated under the Danish Agreement any agents have been appointed in Norway and Sweden for re-exports to those countries. I really do not know where the noble Earl collects the kind of information which he has been pouring forth upon your Lordships' House during the last few minutes. He told us that we must be aware that it was sought to appoint Danish agents in Norway and Sweden who, he said, were to be responsible for re-exports. He went on to inform us that the Norwegian and Swedish Governments declined to permit the appointment of these agents, that they regarded these proposals as an encroachment upon their autonomy, and that he believed legislation was in contemplation in order to prevent anything of the kind occurring. The
392
noble Earl is apparently supplied with this information from the same sources that throughout this affair have been publishing garbled and incomplete accounts of the Agreement and of everything connected with it. The noble Earl apparently swallows with avidity the kind of stories which are told him, and then comes down—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: MY information comes from most responsible sources.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl, of course, will not tell us what the sources are. I am able to tell him that his information is of the most suspect character and that we have excellent reasons for believing that the kind of information with which he is supplied is purveyed by people who are by no means the friends of this country. I will tell the noble Earl this, that it is the case that there was a question of giving facilities to certain Danish firms having branches in Norway and Sweden to continue re-exporting to those branches in the same way as they had done heretofore, but in point of fact no such arrangements have been made, although I believe there has been some discussion with regard to the possibility of them. I have said enough, I hope, to show that in regard to his first Question the noble Earl has discovered what I can only describe as a first-rate mare's nest.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Can the noble Marquess categorically tell me that no agents were contemplated to be appointed in Norway and Sweden under the Danish Agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Not only have they not been appointed, but I may tell the noble Earl that in the Articles which he has in his mind the word "agent" does not even occur. Is that enough for the noble Earl?
I pass to the noble Earl's second Question. He asks whether any goods are now passing into Germany under the exchange provisions of the Danish Agreement. I am able to tell him that no goods are passing from Denmark to Germany under the exchange provisions of the Agreement.
The third Question which the noble Earl puts is whether, in view of the antagonism of Sweden and Norway to the Danish Agreement, it ought not to be abrogated—or, as he now suggests, denounced. I venture

393
to tell the noble Earl that this is an improper Question, and one which he ought not to have put upon the Paper of your Lordships' House. The noble Earl has never made any secret of his profound dislike of the Danish Agreement, and I say fearlessly that I believe his object in putting down this Question is to try and discredit, and if possible wreck, that Agreement. His question contains an assumption and a suggestion. The assumption is that Sweden and Norway are in antagonism to the Agreement. That is not an assumption that His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit. His suggestion is that we should abrogate the Agreement. We are not prepared to entertain any such proposal. On the contrary, we believe that the policy upon which this Agreement and others of the same kind are based is a sound policy, and we intend if we can to develop it and to reinforce it, and we are engaged at this moment in trying to do so. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the Danish associations are to the best of our belief carrying out their obligations with perfect honesty, and it is satisfactory to note that quite lately several successful prosecutions have been instituted against firms who sought to evade these obligations, with the result that the firms in question have been mulcted in exemplary damages.
The noble Earl has asked me three Questions. I am going to put one to him. What useful purpose does he think he can serve by putting down Questions like these? Here is a policy which has been accepted by His Majesty's Government and defended by them, a policy to which they are pledged, and which is at this moment producing promising results. It is a policy intended to give advantages to the honourable trade of the neutral Powers and to place hindrances in the way of the trade of our enemy. Does tie noble Earl really expect that the result of his intervention will be to make us drop that policy? The only effect of his speeches, if they have any effect, would be to embarrass the Government of his own country. The destruction of this Agreement is desired by our enemies; it would be most discouraging to our friends; it would involve a slap in the face to a friendly Power; and I say without hesitation that I think it is much to be regretted that the noble Earl should have identified himself with an agitation which seems to me to be inspired by sentiments which are neither wise nor patriotic.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the debate on Disabled Soldiers' Pensions on Tuesday, 29th February, whether they can now state if disabled soldiers will receive their pay until such time as pension is awarded; whether the gratuity of £2 awarded under Royal Warrant No. 1117 will now be paid to the soldier instead of to the paymaster; whether back pay will be paid in future sooner than it is at present; whether arrangements will be made that no incapacitated soldier shall go to the workhouse; whether an incapacitated soldier may be empowered to apply to the Lord Lieutenant of his county in case of distress; whether men disabled by consumption after service at the Front shall invariably receive a pension; and whether the question of appeals from men may now be put upon a inure satisfactory footing.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, on February 29 Lord Peel brought certain matters before your Lordships' House concerning the pensions and allowances of soldiers discharged from the Army on account of wounds and of diseases contracted or developed on service with the Colours. During that debate I asked Lord Newton, who then represented the War Office, several definite questions. The noble Lord was not able to give me replies on that occasion, and asked me to put the questions at a later date. I have now placed them on the Paper, and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will be able to answer them.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has correctly stated the circumstances in which he asked these Questions, and I think it will be convenient if I answer them categorically. Pension dates from the time of discharge. There should be no period of time during which a man is not in receipt of pay or pension. In fixing the date of discharge a short interval of ten days is allowed, during which the man receives pay, to enable the arrangements to be made for the payment of the pension. The £2 gratuity on discharge is credited to the man's account by his paymaster and issued as part of his balance. It is provided that a, man going on pension shall have at least 20 s. in his pocket on discharge, even though the account is in debt. All men should be settled up with on discharge, and in the

395
very great majority of cases this is done. In some cases, owing to loss of documents on active service or other causes, the exact amount due cannot be immediately ascertained and then an approximate balance is paid. No discharged man whose incapacity is owing to the war would have to go to the workhouse. This does not apply to men discharged as unfit for reasons not arising from the war. It would not be desirable to impose the responsibility suggested in the Question on the Lords Lieutenant, who have no funds for the purpose nor any staff to assist them. Assurance was given in another place that men disabled by diseases aggravated by but, not wholly due to service will receive an increased allowance, though not necessarily at the full rate. All appeals from men receive careful consideration, and the appeal is not submitted to the same medical board from whom the appeal is made. Another board of medical officers considers the appeal, and if necessary the Director-General himself goes through the papers and advises on professional points.

WAR RISKS (INSURANCE BY TRUSTEES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of trustees to insure property against war risks.
1. The power of a trustee to insure against loss or damage by fire under section eighteen of the Trustee Act, 1893, shall, during the continuance of the present war, include, and shall be deemed as from the commencement of the present war to have included, a power to insure against war risks up to the full value of the building or property insured; and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured.
In this Act the expression "War risks" means loss or damage attributable to hostile aircraft or to bombardment or to any operations of war or defence, whether executed by or against the enemy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER): The first Amendment standing in my name is a short Amendment which was suggested by Lord Muir-Mackenzie on the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday. It consists in introducing the date of August 4, 1914, instead of the words "the commencement of the present war." The date of the termination of the war may be uncertain, but the whole world knows when it began, and I quite agree with Lord Muir-Mackenzie that it would be better to introduce the actual date instead of the phrase now in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ("commencement of the present war") and insert ("fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The second Amendment is to leave out the word "accordingly." Lord Wrenbury suggested yesterday that the word as it stood might be mischievous. I think it is unnecessary. As no one seems to have anything to say in favour of the word, I ask your Lordships to leave it out.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("accordingly").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 9.)

EXEMPTIONS FROM MILITARY SERVICE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to ask the Earl of Derby whether he can inform this House what steps have been taken by the Government to deal with—

1. Men who have entered exempted occupations since the 15th August 1915; and

2. Unmarried men under 31 years of age now in exempted occupations;

with a view to rendering such men available for military service.
The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships listened so recently to a statement from my noble friend on the question of married men and the position of exemp-

397
tions, I should have hesitated to trouble the House by again raising the matter, but it is probably within the knowledge of everybody that in the interval this has become perhaps the most important of all domestic subjects at this moment. We have even got to the point when a Parliamentary by-election is being contested by a well-known individual as a "married men's candidate." I ask my noble friend the Question which I have put on the Paper with the intention, not of intensifying discussion, but of allaying the anxiety which has arisen in the course of the last few weeks. Your Lordships' House is by far the fittest place in which to raise these questions, for we not only have the advantage of the presence of my noble friend Lord Derby, who is responsible for this particular scheme, but I am also glad to see the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in his place, because, after all, the last word rests with the Government in this matter. In saying that I am by no means suggesting that there is the slightest doubt in any quarter that the pledge given by my noble friend behind me (Lord Derby) will be observed, and that the confidence which the country justly reposes in him will be equally shown by the Government. But I feel that this question requires to be set at rest. I venture to say that the prolongation of this Parliament for eight months would not have been carried last December without great difficulty had, it not been that the operations which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal regards as essential to keep the ranks full were at that moment in process of being carried out under the pledge given by my noble friend, which the country felt certain would be fulfilled. That being so, we have a special interest in hearing what is now the position of exempted men, as regards the numbers of whom Lord Derby expressed great anxiety when he last addressed your Lordships.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am very glad that, my noble friend has asked this Question, because it affords me an opportunity of explaining what has taken place since his previous Question. Much has happened in the last fortnight. There is one phase which I cannot help mentioning because it affects me personally. There has been much personal abuse of myself and much accusation against me for having failed to fulfil my m promise. My Lords, I hope I am right in saving that I can afford to pass by such attacks upon my
398
honour. The result will only be to show those who have made them without any inquiry as to what one was doing, and still less without any suggestion as to what one ought to do, that they were absolutely unjustifiable attacks.
But I want to differentiate between those who make personal attacks and, those who are creating this agitation with ulterior motives and those who, quite correctly and rightly—those who have attested—seeing their position to a certain extent jeopardised, wish for an explanation of what is taking place to secure the fulfilment of the pledge that the single men should, go first. I do not propose to make any defence of myself. I propose to give an explanation of what has been done, and I feel that this explanation will be sufficient justification for my statement now that everything that I could do has been done, is being done, and, will be done to secure the fulfilment of that pledge.
There are three classes, if I may say so, of complaints from the married men. First, from the married men who attested and frankly say that they would not have attested, if they had thought they would ever be called upon to fight. It is a naïve confession, and it is based on a statement of my own—I admit perhaps a too optimistic one—in November last, when I said that I hoped it would be possible to have yet sufficient young men to bring the war to a successful conclusion without having to put the older and, married men into the field of operations. I cannot think that this could be taken as any pledge to the married man who attested that he would never be called upon.
Another type of married man's objection is best shown in the form of a resolution—one of two resolutions which apparently have been adopted, throughout the country. It is in this form—"That this mass meeting is strongly of opinion that in view of the large numbers of married men who have attested, a great injustice will be inflicted unless all other married men are compelled to attest; and strongly urges the Government to make adequate provision for the financial responsibilities of married men who have attested before requiring them to serve." I am not going into that question. I am one of those who have always, long before the war, been for all men playing their part, whether married or single, in defence of their country. I have never deviated from that for one minute, and

399
although I have done all that I possibly could do to make the voluntary system a success, I have always felt, and always shall feel, that it is the duty of every man to do something for his country. If, therefore, there had been such a general extension of the Military Service Bill as to include all men, I for one should not have opposed it. But that is very different from asking me to read into the Prime Minister's pledge something which certainly never appeared there, and that is that all married men should be brought under the scope of the Act. That is a matter of policy for the Government, just as dealing with the financial liabilities of the men is for the Government, and as far as I am concerned it is to the Government I must leave those two questions. They do not in any way come within the scope of my work of endeavouring to the best of my ability to see the pledge carried out.
Then there is the third and the last class, that of the man who is willing to serve, who is making great sacrifices to serve, and who has a legitimate reason for asking whether we are doing all we can to get the single men. Various suggestions are put forward to me as to my personal attitude. Some tell me I ought to resign; others that I ought to stay on; so that whichever I do I should, therefore, be equally blamed by the opposite party. I have no doubt whatever as to my proper duty, and that is to remain at the War Office as long as I can be of the slightest assistance to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal in trying to put this particular aspect of the recruiting question in the position in which both he and I feel that it ought to be.
But I confess that my position is made a little difficult by a speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, yesterday. Lord Selborne is an old personal friend of mine. We are both striving in different ways for one object, and nothing that he says will in any way affect my personal friendship for him. It is in virtue of that personal friendship that I would ask leave to express to hint, although he is not here to-day, my deepest sympathy with him in the loss that we know he has sustained, a sympathy which I am certain will be extended to him by every member of your Lordships' House. In his speech yesterday Lord Sel borne made two statements about myself which I think will show the difficulty of my position. If I thought that it really represented the considered view of the Government, there
400
could be no alternative but to ask them to I relieve me of any responsibility and to I accept the whole of it themselves. Lord Selborne said—
"Directly somebody like Lord Derby, who did not speak with authority, expressed their opinion, the farmers got into a panic."
All I hope is that I have the authority, not only of Lord Selborne but of the whole of the Government, in saying that it is the duty of the Government to see this pledge fulfilled to the fullest extent.
I am sorry that I shall have to be somewhat lengthy, for which I hope your Lordships will forgive me, in laying before the House and the country what has been done with regard to this particular question of single men first. In the first place, I think that very few of those who are making the present accusation of breach of faith can have really read the pledge that was made. It is assumed by them that the pledge given by the Prime Minister was to the effect that all single men should go before the married men were taken, that there were to be no exemptions, and apparently no appeals. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to read that part of the pledge which bears particularly on this question. To the letter which I wrote to him the Prime Minister sent an answer, and said that my views correctly expressed the intentions of the Government. In it there was this paragraph—
"I think it should be taken to mean that the vast majority of young men not engaged in munition works or works necessary for the country should offer themselves for service, and that men indispensable for civil employment and men who have personal reasons which are considered satisfactory by the Local Tribunals for relegation to a later class should have their claims examined for such relegation in the way which has been already laid down."
In that pledge it was clearly shown that it was absolutely imperative that there should be some exceptions to the rule that all single men should go first. The letter of that pledge was, to my mind, carried out by the Military Service Bill. It is with regard to its operation that we have to take further steps in order to carry out the pledge as we would all wish it carried out. What we ought to have in mind, therefore, is to get from the various trades all those men who have gone into those trades for the sole purpose of endeavouring to avoid military service, and further, even of those who may be actually and legitimately in those trades, all such men as we can

401
properly ask the industries to supply us with.
When making my original Report I had a fairly clear idea of the number of starred men, but any question as to the number of men in reserved occupations was a matter of guess-work. I frankly admit that I entirely underestimated the number of men who were able within the last few months of last year and the first two or three weeks of this year to secure for themselves berths in reserved occupations. As I warned your Lordships, I view with great anxiety these lists of reserved occupations. I warned your Lordships; I could not do more, as I had nothing definite to go upon. I would like to ask your Lordships to consider what these reserved occupation lists were and how they were framed. They were framed by an inter-Departmental Committee which existed for the purpose of being the mouthpiece of the industries of this country as to what trades and what men in those trades were indispensable for the keeping up of the industries of the country. Anybody is indeed foolish if he disregards any such lists entirely and attempts to put aside all restrictions on recruiting which may be necessary to secure the minimum number of men necessary for the upkeep of those industries. To upset any such arrangements as were made, as had to be made, under the reserved occupation lists was not possible until one was perfectly certain of one's ground, and certain also that the reserved occupations were the real cause of our not getting the number of men that we thought we ought to get. I am not usually accused of not being impetuous enough, and in this particular instance I admit that I acted with extreme caution. That was essential. You may destroy the industries of this country by one false move, and I, for one, was not the person who would like to take such a step. I was also not sure whether the exemptions were due to laxity on the part of the Tribunals.
But as time went on it was perfectly evident that the whole cause of the shortage was the reserved occupation lists. I therefore felt it my duty, with Lord Kitchener's consent, to appeal to the Reserved Occupations Committee to do all that they possibly could to take out of the list certain industries and to reduce the number of men who were starred and exempted in other industries. The result of that appeal was a proposal by the Committee to delete certain
402
individual exemptions—that is to say, the particular occupation of a man in a trade was to be exempted—if the Board of Agriculture would also take some action with regard to men whom they exempted. I am not going to deal with that matter now. I dealt with it when I last spoke. However, the result of this was nil. The Board of Agriculture did not see their way to agree to the Board of Trade proposal, and the whole scheme fell to the ground.
It was evident then that far more drastic action had to be taker than was possible for any individual in the War Office or an inter-Departmental Committee such as the Reserved Occupations Committee. I therefore made a direct appeal to the Government, on the last occasion that I bad the honour of addressing your Lordships, to take certain action. I asked them to lay down these two broad rules:—(1) That no single man who had not attained the age of 31 should be, allowed to plead for exemption on the ground that he was starred, badged, or in a reserved occupation. (2) That all other single men and all married men should not be considered as starred or in a reserved occupation unless they had held their present post or one of a similar character with another firm previous to August 15. I do not for one minute say that this is the whole of the demand that we may have to make on His Majesty's Government. But it was a step in the right direction, a step which I believe could be taken and one which would result in giving us many single men and at the same time allow the industries from which those men were taken—slowly, perhaps, but at all events without undue disturbance—to adapt themselves to the new conditions.
It is now for me to state what steps the Government took to meet my two proposals, and I think I cannot do better than read a letter from Mr. Walter Long which gives fairly fully what has been done in the direction I suggested. Mr. Walter Long writes—
"The position is as follows. The Prime Minister desired me to summon a Conference of all the Government Departments in order to ascertain if more men could be released from the reserved occupations. The conference was attended, as you will remember, by the Secretary of State for War, the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, yourself, and other representatives of Government Departments. The President of the Board of Agriculture was unfortunately unable to be there, but he sent his representative. We found that the

403
Committee already sitting at the Board of Trade, and charged with the duty of examining into certain trades, was not sufficiently representative to cover all the ground. We therefore added further representatives, and authorised the Committee to proceed at once to make drastic alterations in the reserved lists and report to the Conference from time to time, any head of a Department having the right, if he sees fit, to appeal to the Conference, whose decision is to be final. The Conference is a Committee of the Cabinet. The Board of Trade Committee is sitting regularly and will, I am confident, deal promptly and effectively with the situation, and I have no doubt this will result in giving us a great many more men."
That was satisfactory, and it is still more satisfactory to gather—
LORD WIMBORNE: What is the date of that?
THE EARL OF DERBY: It was written this afternoon. I do not quite understand the point of my noble friend.
LORD WIMBORNE: I only wanted to know on what day the letter was written.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The letter was written to-day. The Committee sat the day after I spoke. That, I think, was very satisfactory. I was mentioning that it was also satisfactory that the Board of Agriculture was represented there, and I understand from my right, hon. friend Mr. Walter Long that agriculture is just as much subject to revision at the hands of this Committee as is any other trade or industry in this country. The result, on the whole, is satisfactory as showing a really earnest endeavour on the part of the Cabinet Committee to meet the situation. It will want to do more, but I have no fear that this Committee means to go further, and means to do all that it possibly can to weed out what I will call superfluous single men from all works throughout the length and breadth of the land.
The Reserved Occupations Committee issued in the Press yesterday a statement to this effect—
"The Reserved Occupations Committee has already reviewed the exemptions for which it was originally responsible, and the following recommendations have been considered and approved."
I hope your Lordships will note the next statement they make, because it is an ample justification for everything that I have said to the effect that men were wrongly starred and exempted and were
404
getting shielded falsely from military service—
"As evidence has accumulated to show that men have been entering certified occupations in order to avoid military service, it has been decided that men in these occupations will be exempted from military service only if they can show that they were similarly occupied at the date when the National Register was made—August 15, 1915."
Your Lordships will see that one of my points is granted, as I take it, practically in its entirety. The Committee go further and say—
"With the same object of preventing abuse of necessary reservations, it has been decided as far as possible to limit exemption of those claiming to hold positions implying considerable experience and responsibility, such as departmental managers, foremen, overlookers, and the like, to married men aged 30 or over."
That, again, is a distinct advance. This Reserved Occupations Committee deals only with a certain portion of the industries of the country.
There are large bodies of men employed in other industries which come under other Departments. The mining industry, one of the largest in the country, is under the Home Office. The mining industry—I can speak only for my own part of the world, Lancashire—has given a splendid contribution to the Army. I do not wish for one minute to urge anything further on what I will call the legitimate miners in the way of contributing to military service. But I feel—and I hope it will be proved that I am right—that even in the mines there are a great many men who are not really miners, but who have gone into them in order to avoid military service. I hope these men will be given up to the Army. The Home Office have agreed that any men challenged by the military authorities who cannot be shown by the employer in the Colliery Courts—they are separate Courts front the ordinary Courts—to be indispensable shall cease to be exempted. That is a step in the right direction. At the same time I hope to get a little more from the Home Office when they have more fully considered the question.
Now I come to a branch of industry which is new in this country, at least on the scale on which it now exists, and that is the making of munitions. There is not the slightest doubt that at the present moment there are more men hiding from military service in munition works than in any other

405
industry. But I ask the married men who are affected by the present position to agree with me that, for the moment, at all events, munition workers stand on a somewhat different footing. To disorganise munition work at the present moment, to take away suddenly and by a stroke of the pen all the single men from such works might be doing justice to the married men at home, but it might be dealing death to the married men who are fighting at the Front. We cannot disturb this great industry; we cannot stop the flow of ammunition without its having perhaps a terrible effect on those who for many mouths have been our battles. But at the same time, while I feel that in t his respect one has to work rathee differently from what one would do in other industries, there is nobody who recognises more keenly what I have said as to the desirability of abstracting as many single men as possible from these works than the Minister of Munitions himself. The matter is being gone into most thoroughly, and I can say with absolute confidence that from the Minister of Munitions I shall receive every assistance that he can possibly afford me.
I have a statement here with regard to munitions which I have been authorised to make to your Lordships. The list of occupations starred as important for the supply of munitions necessarily stands on a rather different footing from the other lists. The Minister of Munitions and the First Lord of the Admiralty are jointly considering its revision. They have to take into grave account their several responsibilities for the efficiency of the Fleet and the safety of the Army in the trenches, but they are examining with great care the list of occupations starred for Admiralty and munition work. They are not in a position to state precisely the form which that revision will take, but they hope that in the very near future they will have removed exemption both from the classes of men who have accidentally been shielded by the lists and from men whose work, in the light of recent, experience, no longer justifies the retention upon it of men fit for active service in the trenches. As regards badged men, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions have all issued badges to men engaged on war work, but the Minister of Munitions now acts in some measure as trustee for the three Departments in this respect. I am glad to say that, the three Departments are joining heartily in an
406
active supervision of badges. Inspectors have been instructed to scrutinise most carefully the work at present being done by badged men who would, in ordinary times, be classed as unskilled, and to report all cases in which it appears to them that the work could be equally well done by women. To take one example among many, active steps are being taken to replace with women men who are at present engaged on the lighter forms of shell work. Already women are being drafted into munition works at the rate of 15,000 a month, and there is good reason to hope, in view of the steps which the Ministry of Munitions are taking in this respect, that the number will be very greatly increased during the next two months. This has been time effect of the sitting of time Cabinet Committee a fortnight ago, and I think it justifies me in saying to your Lordships that they are evidently taking the matter so seriously and going into it so closely that we shall secure the single men that we require to extract front these works.
I desire to urge upon the Government the absolute necessity of bringing the Registration Act up to date. Every single man of military age should be challenged to produce his registration card, and if he cannot at the same time show an exemption form he should be considered as belonging to the Army. There is no doubt that with the formation of this great Army there has come in this country a great revolution, and the revolution has not vet taken the full effect that I hope it will take before very long. Up to the present in the competition between industry and naval and military service the presumption has been that a man belongs to industry and that the onus of proof that he is not required in industrial work falls upon naval or military shoulders. Personally I think that this ought to be reversed. As regards all single men, at all events, the presumption ought to be that they belong to the Army, and the onus of proof that they are more useful, from the national point of view, in industrial work should fall upon the industries in which they are engaged. I wish I could think of any other way of getting men whom the country is determined we should get for service in the ranks. I have done, as I hope I have shown your Lordships, all that I possibly can do. I believe that the Government are doing all that they possibly can to second the efforts of the War Office. But it takes time.

407
There are two ways, and two ways only, in which one can safely say that the pledge has been absolutely kept—not in the letter, as I firmly believe it has been, but in the spirit. The first way would be absolutely to disregard the industries of this country and to take from those industries, regardless of any appeal, all the single men and put them into the ranks. That would be disastrous to this country, and is most certainly not a proposition I would ever put forward. There is the second—that the calling up of the married groups should be postponed until such tame as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal could say that he had got all the single men that he fairly thought he could take. There is not the slightest doubt that this would be the easiest way, but it must take time. Your Act of Parliament passed only a few weeks ago under which all these men can claim the same privileges gives even greater time to some than we should otherwise have given under a voluntary system. Had this been done a year ago it might have been possible to wait. Unfortunately, the Germans will not wait while we are putting our house in order. It is not for me to speak as to the necessity for men. I understand that the noble and gallant Field-Marshal is going to follow me. It is his voice, the voice of real authority, that will be able to tell the country what the position is. But I venture to express the hope that any appeal I may make to the married men, with whom I feel deeply, for whom I assure your Lordships I am doing everything I possibly can, will not fall on deaf ears, and that they by coming forward will prevent it being said that in our preparations for the reinforcement of our men in the field we were too late.
I thank the House for the kindness with which you have listened to, I am afraid, a somewhat lengthy explanation. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that everything that can be done is being done. In conclusion, let me say to your Lordships and to those outside who are interested in this question that if there is any other way in which we can facilitate and expedite the work we have in hand we shall be only too glad.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Derby, who has given me so much valuable assistance in the Recruiting Department of the War Office and has worked so whole
408
heartedly for the good of the Army, has been able to explain in detail to your Lordships what has been going on in his Department. Your Lordships will remember that last month I sounded a note of warning as to whether we should obtain the number of men from the groups and classes that we require for the Army, and I then asked all employers of labour to assist us by releasing young men from their employment. Since then we have been following the output from the group and class system, and I regret to say that my fears have been realised during the last month. The original estimate of our requirements for April necessitated the calling up of some of the younger married attested groups, and the deficiencies of March will require the calling up of more groups earlier than we had hoped would have been necessary.
The production and maintenance of an Army of the magnitude we now possess has naturally revolutionised the whole industrial conditions in the country, and the Tribunals have found it necessary to grant temporary exemptions to prevent the disorganisation of industry so as to give time to employers to provide substitutes either from men incapable of military service or from women. These time exemptions have naturally delayed our obtaining many men whom we shall eventually get. But, as your Lordships will agree, this does not help us in providing for our immediate needs. In addition to this delay in obtaining men there are unfortunately many men of those who have voluntarily attested, as well as of those who come under the Military Service Act, who are for the present evading military service in the various manners described by my noble friend. My noble friend has suggested various means by which the services of these men may be obtained, and the country may rest assured that I shall support him in his efforts, and that I endorse his statement that he has done and is doing all that is possible to obtain these men, whom I have not the slightest doubt we shall eventually bring in. But this will require time.
Meanwhile we need men whom we can train to meet the calculated requirements of the war. Married men who have attested should realise that, even if we had obtained all the single men that it was anticipated we should secure from the group system and the Military Service Act,

409
we should still require a large number of the married men within the next few weeks. Men have to be trained. The mere fact that a man comes up on a certain date does not mean that he is at once available. It requires many weeks to make him efficient to take the field. I would therefore earnestly appeal to the married men who have attested to place their patriotism and the national cause before any personal considerations and to come forward without hesitation and join the ranks. The position is an anxious one owing to the disappointing numbers joining for general service. As I have said, we are taking every step we possibly can to secure the single men, and we shall not rest in our endeavours until we have secured all those single men who cannot rightly be said to be indispensable in the national interest in their employment.

THE AIR SERVICE.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask the Earl of Derby, as representing the Inter-Departmental Committee on Air Service, what the functions of that Committee are, and whether he can give any information as to the work it has done.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question to-day because the noble Earl, not being in the House the other night when I made a speech on this question, was not able then to inform the House and the country what was being done by the Committee over which he presides. I am sure we shall be interested to hear what he has to say on this subject, and I trust that he will be able—as I am sure he will—to reassure us as to the work that is being done by the Committee, and also hold out hopes that its scope, powers, and responsibilities may be enlarged.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, again I have to trouble your Lordships with a somewhat lengthy answer. I thank the noble Lord for giving me in his Question my proper designation as representing an inter-Departmental Committee. I very much regret my absence on the occasion of the debate last week. It was not due to discourtesy to the noble Lord, who I think knew the reason of my absence. I am also sorry that I gave in what I said on a former occasion any impression that I minimised the importance of the Committee of which I have the honour
410
of being chairman. I did not wish to minimise it, but only to prevent the public from magnifying it. So many statements had been made with regard to one's position and one's powers that I thought it was very desirable to put at all events briefly my position. I am able to do it at greater length at the present moment. I am glad to think that the noble Lord will know the functions of the Committee as well as, or perhaps even better than, I do myself, because he has consented at the request of the Prime Minister to come on the Committee. I am sure nothing could give greater confidence to the country at large that the Committee will endeavour to do good work for the Air Service than the appointment of Lord Montagu as one of its members.
This Committee is quite rightly called an inter-Departmental Committee. The chief ends to be attained by the Committee can practically be summed up in one paragraph—namely, to ensure that the manufacture, supply, and distribution of material required by aircraft are in accordance with the policy of aerial warfare laid down by His Majesty's Government; to avoid clashing or overlapping demands upon the manufacturing resources available, while securing the full and harmonious use of the same; and to eliminate correspondence between the Departments upon points which affect more than one. This Committee, as I have pointed out, has nothing to do with the defence of this kingdom against aircraft. That is quite rightly left in the hands of Lord French. Air policy is not framed by the Committee, but may, of course, be affected to a certain extent when we go into the question of production of aircraft by the information we are able to give to the War Committee. The air policy has been laid down by His Majesty's Government. Each branch of the Service has its own duty to perform, and the duty of the Committee is to see as far as it can that all that each branch requires to carry out the policy laid down is placed at its disposal.
It is to prevent overlapping, to provide closer intercommunication between the two Departments, that this Committee has been formed; and I am glad to say that even in the short time we have been in existence we have been able materially to help the joint work of the two branches of the Air Service. For instance—I must

411
not give figures—there was an urgent need from one branch for a certain kind of aircraft. By discussing the matter that particular kind was put at the disposal of that branch and was of great value to it, while in return the branch was able to release other machines which were more useful to the naval branch. I hope we shall increase the output. We have at the present moment no executive work; the executive work is carried out by the two branches of the Air Service. But I feel that this Committee is only the beginning of what may be a very large departure in this kingdom. I hope that we shall be able to bring the two branches so closely together that there can be no question of competition between the two, and I am strongly of opinion that we shall be able to justify the confidence that has been placed in us by His Majesty's Government.
It is impossible to say what is in the future. All I can say is that I personally should not have the least hesitation in asking the Prime Minister to relieve me of my post of chairman if I felt, that the work was beyond my scope or necessitated my abandoning my work at the War Office. And I should do that all the more readily since I know that I am going to have as a colleague my noble friend Lord Montagu, whose experience in matters connected with the air will now, I hope, be given that full scope which ought to be, and which can be, of such benefit to the nation at large.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his full answer to my Question. At the request of the Prime Minister I have become a member of the Committee. I feel it to be my duty to help in every way I can at this crisis, and any service that I can give to this Committee will be gladly and freely given. I trust that what the noble Earl has said as to the extension of the functions of the Committee will take place before long, because I feel, with him—and I said so last Thursday—that it, should be the nucleus of something much larger which should be able to do more than the present Committee is doing. No doubt His Majesty's Government in course of time will reconsider this question very carefully and see whether they cannot make this a Committee of extended usefulness.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, in venturing to address Your Lordships' House this evening I feel that I can claim that indulgence which your Lordships are always generous to afford to one who addresses you for the first time. My reason for venturing to intervene in this debate is this. Through a great number of years I was in complete sympathy in almost all respects with the Party to which I belonged in another place, but there was one point upon which I was at variance with them—namely, the position which was taken up with reference to military service; and as this Committee has now been formed with reference to the Air Service perhaps I may state that, in co-operation with the noble Earl opposite, who has taken such an interest in the question of the universal liability of the citizens of this country to military service, I have always held the view that it was immaterial what amount of training the man was subjected to, or whether this general liability to military service was exercised through local and municipal councils or through the War Office, but that it was imperatively necessary that the Government of this country should have the power of demanding the service of every citizen in time of need. However, prœterita revocare non possumus. But I do say that the moment has now arisen when in the interests of the country some further steps should be taken to give the Government complete power over the fighting manhood of the nation. We are all deeply grateful to the noble Earl for what he has done so self-sacrificingly in the interests of filling up the gaps in the ranks, and I believe the people of the country are deeply grateful to him also. There was a time when we were led to believe that this country was absolutely safe as long as we had the Navy. I have no desire to under-rate what has been done by the Navy—
THE EARL OF DERBY: May I interrupt the noble Lord, who was a personal friend of mine in the old days in the House of Commons The rules of order in this House are rather different from what they are in another place, but I am afraid the noble Lord is speaking on a question beyond which we have passed. We are now on the Air Service.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: I thoroughly understand, and I purpose dealing with the Air Service. I desire to point out that the noble Earl's great difficulty is

413
this, that at the present moment there are large numbers of single men, many of whom are not suited for the Air Service, who undoubtedly joined it for the purpose of sheltering themselves behind that Service and thereby avoiding the military service which they ought to have joined. What I was about to point out was that the necessity for developing the Air Service has become greater than ever owing to the fact that formerly we could have relied on our Navy to a large extent to defend us. We have had great disasters in this country—large numbers of raids; and we have had men, women, and children killed
414
and grievously injured without the Navy being in a position to do much to assist us. Now if the Government of the day would take to themselves the power of drawing upon the entire manhood of the country, married and unmarried, and if the Air Service were able to select from the best and most skilful mechanics throughout the country the men they require both for construction and for flying, we would be in a far better position than we are at the present moment.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.