MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

HL Deb 22 May 1916 vol 22 cc6-68

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandhurst.)

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of delaying the consideration of this Bill in Committee, but it appears to me that it might be possible even to accelerate the progress of the Bill at this stage by a few observations made beforehand. Your Lordships will remember that on the First Reading I suggested that we should be put in full possession of the intentions of His Majesty's Government regarding Amendments, and I invited the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to make such a statement in moving the Second Reading, so as to enable us to begin that stage with a full knowledge of what we were asked to debate. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he would comply with that request. He did so, and I am grateful to him for it.

But in the Second Reading debate we had from the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) two very important statements which affect our position now, and must affect very materially the conduct of this Bill in Committee. There are, as it appears to me, two main points which will have to be considered in connection with this Bill in Committee. The first is what you will do with the apparent miscarriages—the undoubted miscarriages, I think I may say—which have happened in the progress of inquiries before the Local and Appeal Tribunals regarding claims for exemption on the part of conscientious objectors. I think there is no doubt that there have been pretty numerous and grievous miscarriages. You may contest the number, but they are grave and numerous enough to demand attention. That has been the evidence of almost all who have had any experience in watching the conduct of these Tribunals; and considering that there are over 2,000 Tribunals up and down the country it cannot be surprising that there should have been mistakes. We know that in some cases the Tribunals went wrong in their interpretation of the existing Act, and that in other cases the chairman or the members of the Tribunal entered into discussions with those who appeared before them which were entirely irrelevant to the main issues in hand and the main questions they were asked to consider.

The noble Marquess opposite practically allowed that, although the number might not be so numerous as alleged, there were cases in which mistakes had been committed; and this in spite of the fact—on which he dwelt more than once—that all these persons who had applied for exemption had appeared before two Tribunals. For it is admitted that the Appeal Tribunal, in some cases certainly, did not improve the character of the investigation conducted by the Local Tribunal. It was a singular circumstance—I will not say it was improper, but it was an unusual circumstance—in the conduct of some of the Appeal Tribunals that they increased the stringency of the order made by the Local Tribunal against those who claimed exemption. The noble Marquess, in his speech on the Second Reading, said that if substantial authority could be advanced for reconsidering cases—I do not know whether he was speaking of individual cases or of classes of cases—something might be done to promote a review of such cases. I interposed to invite him to explain, if he could, a little more fully what was meant by substantial authority; and my noble friend Lord Bryce, in a more orderly fashion, urged him, at a later stage if not then, to give more information as to what kind of authority was meant and how it could be employed to obtain a reconsideration of the cases which had gone wrong. Seeing that it is admitted that some cases have gone wrong—and on that point I may quote perhaps the highest authority, the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Salisbury), who has had the singular advantage of sitting on the Central Appeal Tribunal which has issued model orders for the instruction of the lower Tribunals—and seeing that something must be done, we cannot go into Committee on this Bill until we know what the Government propose to do in this matter; and I invite the noble Marquess to give us a statement of what the Government's intentions are before we consider the necessarily tentative, the imperfect and perhaps ill-informed, suggestions which we ourselves have placed on the Paper.

The second practical question which we have to consider has arisen out of this, but is, perhaps, even more grave—the question of rescuing the persons who are now undergoing treatment, some of imprisonment and some of punishment, at the hands of military authorities and under military jurisdiction for refusing to undertake the duties of soldiers—rescuing them, I mean, from the military authorities and relegating them to the control of the civil authorities. This was also pressed on the House very forcibly by the noble Marquess behind me, and it appears to be now universally admitted that these offenders must be taken away from military jurisdiction and remitted to civil jurisdiction.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No, No.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I note that it is not universally admitted, but it is very largely admitted; and I think I could cite authorities which would go the length, perhaps, of even convincing those who still hesitate about that point. The persons on whose behalf I am speaking do not resist military organisation; they resist the preliminary suggestion that they are soldiers, and refuse to become soldiers. They may be open to the condemnation of the State on that account, but it is surely too much to thrust them into the position of being soldiers against their will, and then to punish them for failure to comply with military discipline when they do not allow that they are under military discipline at all. I thought that we had all come pretty well to the conclusion that these men ought to be taken away from the position in which they are and placed under the civil authorities. But if any one hesitates on that point, I invite him to read an important letter which appeared to-day in The Times under the signature of "R." A member of your Lordships' House—I do not know whom—gives in this letter his experience as a military officer sitting on Courts Martial and seeing how the thing works at the Front; and his evidence really amounts to this—that the presence of this class of offender and the consideration of the punishment to be meted out for his offence is operating in such a fashion upon the soldiers themselves and upon the organisation of the Army in the field as to become a regular source of demoralisation; that it is a sort of foreign poison which is introduced, which works badly for the discipline of the Army. I am not using the exact language of the letter. If I could, I would have brought it here and read it to your Lordships. But I believe I am representing the purport and sense of the letter, which struck me as one of extraordinary force, and such as must command the attention and respect of every one who reads it. The language is that of experience at the Front from an officer sitting on Courts Martial, who has no sympathy whatever with these conscientious objectors, who says that their presence there is a nuisance and an injury to the Army, and who suggests that they should be sent back and subjected to some procedure under the civil authorities.

Here, again, the noble Marquess opposite said, in the course of his speech in the Second Reading debate, that he was not without hope. He was in consultation with the noble and gallant Field-Marshal beside him in the hope that some arrangement might be made which would get rid of the difficulty—I presume by removing this class of offenders entirely from the field of war and stopping others from going, and remitting them to civil jurisdiction. But whatever may be the nature of the proposal, some kind of arrangement, he suggested, was in course of consideration which would remove the difficulty. It is most desirable that we should have that arrangement, if it has gone any further, explained to us before we go into Committee We should then know where we are and what we are doing. I have put on the Paper proposals for meeting this and other difficulties. I do not, however, lay any stress upon them, and do not propose at this moment to enter into them. I only say that those proposals in themselves are of no moment, and I would gladly lay them aside if some better scheme were forthcoming from the Government to-night. I earnestly press upon the noble Marquess the expediency of making a clean breast of the matter now, and telling us what the Government are prepared to do to meet the very serious points, the two main points, coming up for discussion. Our discussions in Committee will be much facilitated and accelerated if we can get a preliminary explanation such as I have invited.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I observe that the noble Lord who has just addressed the House has two Amendments on the Paper dealing with this subject, and I confess I should have thought that the more convenient course would have been to wait until we reach those Amendments, which raise sharply and distinctly the questions which he has brought forward now, and to examine the matter then rather than in a preliminary discussion such as that which he invites. But I have no objection, so far as I can, to answer his questions.

The noble Lord referred in particular to two statements which I made to the House the other evening when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading. The first of them had reference to our intentions with regard to what I think the noble Lord called "miscarriages of justice"—cases in which the Appeal Tribunals might be supposed to have taken a mistaken view of applications brought before them in which conscientious objectors were involved. The noble Lord quoted what purported to be the substance of my observations, and to what I said on that occasion I certainly adhere. I prefer, however, to state the point in the words that I actually used, and they were these. I said— Where a particular case appears to call for reconsideration for substantial reasons, and reasons urged by a substantial authority in all such cases the President of the Local Government Board is ready to send particulars of the case to the Tribunal by which it was tried for the observations of that Tribunal. I added that— My right hon. friend is prepared to go even further, and, if it seems necessary, to call for the production of the evidence so that it may he examined; and if, after such examination, he is satisfied that there is a prima facie reason to suppose that the case has been improperly decided, he will then reserve to himself the power of asking the Tribunal to re-hear the ease. That was, I think, a fairly explicit statement.

The noble Lord asked me then, and he asks me again to-night, what I mean by a "substantial authority." I have no intention of endeavouring to limit my words by any attempt to define what I intended by that expression. I can conceive many illustrations of what we should all regard as a substantial authority. Let me take one—a case of some person in agricultural employment whose retention at his work seems to my noble friend Lord Selborne a matter of the utmost national importance. Supposing such a person were to be refused relief by the Tribunal, and supposing that my noble friend were to move the President of the Local Government Board to make some inquiry into the circumstances, nobody would for a moment deny that this was a case of a substantial authority intervening for a substantial reason; and one can conceive many other like cases. Surely if anything is to be done in this direction it is desirable that the procedure should be as elastic as possible, and that we should not attempt to define it by the precise kind of language which we should use if we were drafting an Act of Parliament.

The other question which the noble Lord asked was whether I was able to hold out any hope to him that we were prepared to take action for the purpose of what he called rescuing conscientious objectors who had been condemned by the military Courts and were suffering under such condemnation. Let me remind the House that the persons whom the noble Lord has in view are men who have been twice before the Tribunals—once before a Local Tribunal and once before an Appeal Tribunal—and have been adjudged not to be conscientious objectors. They are, therefore, for the time beyond all question soldiers, and, as soldiers, subject to military discipline. But, as I said the other evening, my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War has had his attention directed to cases of this class, and he will be prepared in a moment to give your Lordships a general indication of the kind of policy which he has in view. I have, as far as the circumstances permit, made a "clean breast of it," and I am afraid I can give the noble Lord no further information.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend opposite that it is very inconvenient at this moment, while the Lord Chancellor is on the Woolsack, to anticipate the discussion which is going to take place in Committee; but I should like to express the hope that the arrangement under which an unreasonable refusal to grant an appeal is to be corrected will not be left absolutely vague. I see no means of making it clear in the Bill. But it is obvious that there ought to be regulations of some kind under which aggrieved parties might know what course they ought to pursue if they have been treated unreasonably, and I am sure my noble friend will consider some time or other whether regulations on this head ought not to be issued.

I suppose the Government have satisfied themselves that there is power in an Appeal Court to re-hear a decision at which they have arrived. I know that there is power, both under the principal Act, and in this Bill, to review or renew a certificate which has been granted; but is there power to review a decision under which a certificate has been refused? My noble friend will appreciate the difference. The very fact that the law provides in one case for a remedy and not in the other is a presumption that there is no such remedy in the other case. I hope that His Majesty's Government will ascertain whether that is so before we finally pass from the power of amending the Bill.

I now come to a point which I raised in the Second Reading debate. It does not form the subject matter of any discussion in Committee, and therefore is properly raised at this stage. It is whether the Government have any statement to make with regard to an assurance given by the President of the Local Government Board in another place that under certain conditions he would instruct Local Tribunals that they were to grant exemption to heads of businesses. I know that it was a carefully limited assurance. I can only say how greatly I regret this kind of assurance coming at a late hour in Parliament, because it is liable to be misunderstood, and I happen to know that this assurance has been already misunderstood, and that some people have drawn the inference that all heads of businesses, more or less, will be exempted; whereas, of course, your Lordships know that "heads of businesses" is a vague phrase extending from the head of a large solicitor's business or a huge insurance concern to the head of a hairdresser's shop. All of them would come under these very vague words. I do not wish to press my noble friend beyond what is reasonable at the present moment, but as I mentioned the matter in the course of what I said in the Second Heading debate perhaps he may be in a position to say something which would make clear to the public that no such drastic alteration of the law is anticipated by the Government—indeed, they have no power, by instruction, to do such a thing.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I am sorry that the point which my noble friend has brought before the House escaped my attention. I do not know what the exact terms of the assurance given by Mr. Long were, but I feel little, doubt that he could not have contemplated any general instruction or regulation by which all heads of businesses, no matter of what sort, were to be indiscriminately released. I take it that what must have been present to his mind was some regulation which would give guidance to the Tribunals in their interpretation of the instructions which they already have to give relief to people who are indispensable for any industrial or commercial purpose. Mr. Long may have intended to amplify that, and to amplify it in some mode advantageous to heads of businesses.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It only applies to indispensable persons?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am sure that is the intention.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER)

My Lords, the noble Marquess has appealed to me to reply to one point raised by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches with regard to the disposal of conscientious objectors after they have come into the Army. I recognise that this is a subject which has given rise to feeling in various parts of the House and caused considerable anxiety. I have therefore gone very carefully into the matter with the authorities at the War Office, and am of opinion that under the powers possessed by the Army Council we are in a position to deal with the matter in a manner which will meet the views of noble Lords—that is to say, the genuine conscientious objectors will find themselves under the civil power. I may add that the whole question is still under our most careful consideration, and though the difficulty of discriminating between the different classes of men who allege conscientious objections to military service is one of extreme delicacy, I feel convinced that we shall find a satisfactory solution.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Extension and continued operation of Military Service Act, 1916.

1.—(1) Every mule British subject who has at any time since the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen been, or for the time being is ordinarily resident in Great Britain and who for the time being has attained the age of eighteen years, and has not attained the age of forty-one years, shall, unless he either is for the time being within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to the Military Service Act, 1916 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), as amended by this Act or any subsequent enactment, or has attained the ago of forty-one years before the appointed date, be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty's regular forces for general service with the colours or in the reserve for the period of the war, and to have been forthwith transferred to the reserve: Provided that stops shall be taken to prevent so far as possible the sending of men to serve abroad before they attain the age of nineteen.

The appointed date shall, as respects men who come within the operation of this section on the passing of this Act, be the thirtieth day after the date of the passing of this Act, and, as respects men who come within the operation of this section after the passing of this Act, be the thirtieth day after the date on which they so come within the operation of this section.

(2) All the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, with the exception of those defining the appointed date, shall, so far as applicable extend to men to whom this section applies in the same manner as to men to whom section one of that Act applied.

(3) Subsection (4) of section one of the principal Act is hereby repealed.

LORD STRACHIE moved to amend subsection (1) by deleting from the beginning of the subsection the words "Great Britain" and substituting "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question was raised in the other House, but neither the Government nor the House of Commons had the courage to deal with it. It was rather interesting to read what was said upon this subject from the Treasury Bench. It was quite clear that there could be no possible justification put forward for giving exceptional treatment to single and married men in Ireland, and that it was only a question of political expediency. But in my opinion your Lordships should have an opportunity, if you think fit, of saying whether or not you agree that in the great national crisis through which the country is passing it is right to consider political exigencies and political expediencies. Your Lordships will remember that when the first Military Service Bill, which dealt only with single men, was before Parliament the question was raised of extending to Ireland the same liability which single men were asked to undertake in this country. Then the Government stated, as their justification for refusing to extend the Bill to Ireland, that they feared, if they did so, there would be disturbances in Ireland. And now, from this second instalment of the Military Service Act, by which married men in Great Britain are to be forced, whether they like it or not, to take up arms in defence of their country, Ireland is still excluded. But on this occasion the Coalition Government urge, in defence of separate treatment for Ireland, not the fear of disturbances, but the fact that disturbances have arisen in Ireland. It seems to me that one may very fairly say that these two arguments are mutually destructive. What could, however, have been expected when we see from the evidence given before the Commission of Inquiry—brought out, I was glad to see, by the learned Judge who is a member of the Commission, and who is acting without fear or favour and with no intention of allowing the Government of Ireland to be whitewashed—that the Government of Ireland actually allowed the Irish Volunteers to practise street-fighting in the streets of Dublin and also to practise a sham attack on Dublin Castle? What would be thought of a Government in this country who allowed Socialists to practise sham fighting in the streets of London, or to practise a sham attack upon Buckingham Palace? But this extraordinary state of things has been going on in Ireland. Surely, therefore, one is not surprised that there have been serious disturbances. Yet because of these disturbances the Government have not the courage to come forward and say that there should be equality of sacrifice throughout the United Kingdom.

Again, the argument has been used by the Coalition Government that unless there was universal agreement on the subject in Ireland it was impossible to apply compulsion to single or married men in that country. What was the objection in Ireland to conscription? It was stated very clearly by Mr. Birrell. He said that the objection in Ireland to conscription came from the country districts, where men did not wish to leave the farms on which they were doing well, rather than from the towns. So that, in the opinion of the late Chief Secretary, it was not a case of conscientious objection or objection to fighting for England, but simply that Irishmen preferred staying at home, doing very well on the land, rather than sacrificing their homes, breaking up their businesses, and going out to fight for their country. But that argument is not allowed to apply in Great Britain. It cannot be said that in Great Britain conscription is universally accepted. For there are thirty-eight members of the House of Commons, representing large and important constituencies, who time after time have, for different reasons, voted against conscription either for single or for married men. It seems to me that if it is right to recognise these reasons as sound in Ireland, it would be equally right to recognise them as being sound in this country. But not a bit of it. England, Scotland, and Wales are to have differential treatment.

I submit that it is most unfair to have compulsion in Great Britain—though I cordially support it, and think that the Government ought to have had the courage long ago to have brought it in for the whole of the United Kingdom, instead of, as in all things, taking one or two bites at the cherry—and not to have compulsion in Ireland. The wastage in the magnificent Irish regiments, which have fought in this war as bravely as, if not more bravely than, any other regiments, is estimated at 50,000; but it will now be impossible to make up this wastage with Irishmen. The result will be that the losses in these Irish regiments will have to be made good by Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen. Is it right that single and married men in Ireland should remain free and be able to come over to this country and earn good wages in the places which the men of this country have left? It seems to me a very great injustice that British mothers and British wives should have to give their nearest and dearest, while Irish mothers and Irish wives are able to keep their sons and husbands safely at home. Married men in Great Britain are asked not only to risk life and limb—which they are very ready to do—but also to suffer the loss of their businesses and the breaking up of their homes; whereas if they happened to live in Ireland they would be allowed to remain in perfect safety.

I have another objection to the exemption of Ireland from this Bill, speaking as an unrepentant Home Ruler; and on this point I appeal to those Liberal Peers who, like myself, sat in the House of Commons and still believe in Home Rule. By refusing to extend compulsion to Ireland under this Bill you are placing a powerful weapon in the hands of the opponents to Home Rule. It is true that the Home Rule Bill is now on the Statute Book, but it is equally true that the Unionists in Ulster have declared that the measure can never be effective, and that the Coalition Government has actually suspended its operation; and we know very well that the opinions of Sir Edward Carson, and probably those of Lord Lansdowne, are very little different from what they were before the Coalition Government came into force. If that is so, what a weapon the exclusion of Ireland from this Bill will be in the hands of the opponents of Home Rule when the Coalition Government is dissolved and when once more the constituencies are appealed to on the Home Rule question. Will Home Rule appeal to the married and single men of this country who have had to go out and fight while Irishmen were exempted? Will it not be said, "The Irish were so disloyal that the Government feared to apply conscription to Ireland. Therefore, are these the people to whom to give a semi-independent Parliament? Can people be trusted who have been in the past unready to take their part in fighting for the safety of the Empire in a great national crisis? Are those the people to whom Home Rule can be given?"

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after ("in") insert ("the United Kingdom of") and after ("Britain") insert ("and Ireland").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF DESART

My Lords, I am a little sorry, I confess, that my noble friend has raised this issue. I am perhaps even more sorry to have listened to his concluding observations, because I think all of us, whether in old days Unionist or Home Ruler, Southern Unionist or Northern Unionist, are desirous in this great crisis of putting the question of the ultimate government of Ireland aside in pursuance of the truce, which I honestly think in Ireland and elsewhere has been rigidly observed since the commencement of the war.

I want to say one word on this particular Amendment, because, had one to deal only with the general observations made by my noble friend, I should find myself in almost complete agreement with him. Indeed, I have in this House expressed my great regret that the Irish had not been thought willing, perhaps some will say worthy, to share the burden of their fellow countrymen in Great Britain. I regret that as deeply as I ever did. I did hold that the danger that was apprehended by the Government was not as great as they anticipated, because certain classes, notably the labourers and the townsmen, had gone to the Colours exceedingly well, and I believed that there was a very strong feeling that the farmer class had not responded as they should, and that in fairness they should be made to share in the burden which so many of their countrymen had undertaken. But a great deal has happened since then. There has been rebellion in Ireland; and the immediate task of the Government, which I may say is in payment of a debt to all the law-abiding people in Ireland having regard to the situation that has arisen—I am not going to make any attack—is a very simple one, in whatever way it is effected. It is to produce such a condition of things that the peaceable people in Ireland of all classes shall know that they have the protection of the law, and that those among them who may be inclined to disturb the peace shall know that the law will reach them. That is the immediate objective of the Government. And I confess that as we are placed now, if the Government say—and I assume they so say, because they have not included Ireland in the Bill—that to put forward a scheme of compulsion and apply it to Ireland would be a disturbing factor in performing that elementary duty, I for one could not support the Amendment moved by the noble friend.

The Government have a difficult task, and we should not attempt to hamper them so long as we are satisfied that they are performing that task as well as they are able to, free not only from such a disturbing factor as this might be but from many others which have been the subject of great controversy in the past and which I think would be equally disturbing. I am sure that the Government recognise that they have to see that the law in Ireland protects the peaceable and deters disturbers of the peace, and, speaking for myself, I would not impose any burden on them which would at all interfere with the steps they may think fit and proper for that purpose. Therefore if the Government say that my noble friend's proposal would impede them in performing that duty, I should in that case go into the Lobby with them.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment through the various phases of his speech. Your Lordships will remember that in the debate on the Second Reading Lord Oranmore and Browne mentioned this question, and I understood him to say that he knew very well that there were reasons why this extension to Ireland should not be made. We are extremely anxious that this should be as far as possible a Bill of general agreement. The noble Lord made no reference whatever to the question of the Tribunals, with which the Bill is so much bound up. I do not suppose that even he would say that to set up Tribunals in Ireland would be an easy matter.

LORD STRACHIE

Why not?

LORD SANDHURST

There can be no doubt that if this question had been taken up as a practical one in Ireland it would have raised matters of very heated controversy, especially at a time like the present when unfortunately we have had disturbances in Dublin and elsewhere. I cannot but think that the opinion of your Lordships will be that it is undesirable to add to controversies of that description. We shall be at one in acknowledging the extreme gallantry of the Irish troops who have taken and are taking part as our comrades in various parts of the world. Nothing that can be said in praise of them is too good. But in the general circumstances of the case I cannot ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, the noble Lord has met the demand of my noble friend very much as we expected he would under present conditions, but I do not think any member of your Lordships' House will consider that the position is a satisfactory one. Nothing more ridiculous could be conceived than that two classes of His Majesty's subjects living in such close association should be treated so differently as are the Irish subjects of the Crown and those resident in Great Britain. I heard a rather amusing illustration of that. Perhaps the only individual in Dublin who still has the advantage of being served by footmen found it impossible to allow them to go outside his own gates because they were hooted for not joining the Army by a number of men themselves exempt, being Irishmen.

The whole position, I venture to think, is unjust and undesirable, more especially if you look at the figures of enlistment up to the present. I cannot stand bail for these figures, but I have seen it stated—and if it is not the fact I think His Majesty's Government ought to contradict it—that since the beginning of the war, out of the numbers who are nominally available between the ages for enlistment, only 4 per cent. have enlisted in the Province of Connaught, 8 per cent. in the Province of Munster, and 12 per cent. in the Province of Leinster, while 24 per cent. have enlisted in the Province of Ulster. I am sure that anybody who has regard to these figures will feel that pressure should have been brought to bear; and it would have been, I think, in view of recent events, of great value had it been applied in time. But, on advice which has been found quite unreliable as to the condition of Ireland in other matters, the late Chief Secretary apparently advised the Cabinet that to attempt to enforce this law in Ireland would lead to disorder and trouble. I do not believe for one moment that if this step had been boldly taken a year ago you would have had the trouble that was then anticipated, and I make that statement on the authority of a number of persons who have been far more correct than those who advised the late Chief Secretary with regard to the then condition of the country. I think it could have been done a year ago; it might have been done six months ago; but I quite recognise that it would be very difficult to do it now.

And just as some years ago, standing in this place, I ventured to predict that com- pulsion in any form would never be resorted to in this country until the military authorities at the War Office came forward and said they could not fulfil their duties without it—just as that has been proved to be true within the last few days, on the authority of the Lord Privy Seal, so I venture to suggest to my noble friend that we shall never be able to apply compulsion to Ireland until the Government, with a strong hand and decisive force, declare that that is part of their policy. That being so, and as our object is to carry this Bill with the least delay, we should do no good by dividing your Lordships' House to-night on this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

In Clause 1 as it stands provision is taken that as a rule no lad shall be sent to the Front who is under nineteen. I wish, by my Amendment, to make that rule absolute. Feeling in the House of Commons grew, in the course of the discussion of the Bill, in favour of the absolute immunity of lads under nineteen being sent to the Front, and I am hopeful that the Government may have been so influenced by the evident desire to make the law strict and universal that they will be prepared to accept my Amendment. But if they say they cannot possibly accept it, I do not wish to press it. The Bill as it stands lays down the principle that no lad should be sent under nineteen and that is a great advance on the original situation.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("steps shall be taken to prevent so far as possible the sending of men") and insert ("no man shall be sent").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I am not able wholly to agree with my noble friend who has moved this Amendment. It is important to get as many men as you can by the application of a principle the justification for which is that it is applied in time of war and in time of necessity. Therefore those who are under nineteen ought not to be exempt unless there is some real reason for it. I think that the impression that young men under nineteen should not be sent to the Front has been derived from the tradition of our Army—a tradition which I hope to show, in a few sentences, has no application to the question with which we are dealing. Our Army is a long service Army, and men are enlisted early, nominally at eighteen, sometimes earlier I am afraid, and the bulk of them when they go abroad, as they nearly all do at some time if they belong to the Line regiments, go to India. The Army medical authorities have thought it bad for the health of men under twenty that they should be exposed to the trials of the Indian climate. I used myself to think that they took too timorous a view upon that, but they assured me it was so. They also assured me that the reasons which actuated them had not the same application to people at another stage. There was no difficulty about taking men at eighteen and training them very hard here, and making them go through every kind of manæuvre; they would have been used for home defence had they been required for that purpose in this country; and anybody who has seen young recruits, particularly those who have had a year of training, knows that what are called boys of nineteen—and boys under nineteen, too—are very often extremely lit people. I should be very sorry to go further than the Government have gone in the words they have inserted. Indeed, my impression is that it was under a misapprehension—and a great deal of pressure has been put upon them—that they were led to introduce the words even as they stand. Speaking for myself I should, as I say, be sorry to go further, because I think you would be making a serious hole in the number of men you require to get.

LORD SANDHURST

I understood the noble Lord on the Cross Benches to say that if, in the opinion of the Government, it was undesirable that this Amendment should be accepted, he would not press it. I am very glad to hear that. The proviso in the clause runs— Provided that stops shall be taken to prevent so far as possible the sending of men to serve abroad before they attain the age of nineteen. It would be manifestly hard to place upon a commander a responsibility which might possibly subject him to legal proceedings if he kept a man in the field under nineteen. Moreover, it is impossible at the present moment to say what the military necessities may be two or three months hence, and it would be for that reason unwise to insert an absolute statutory prohibition against sending men abroad under nineteen. The Army Council will do all they can to prevent lads going abroad under nineteen but they cannot absolutely bind themselves as to what may be the military necessities in the future. Nor can they do anything that would expose those responsible for the Army to legal action in case by any chance a lad under nineteen should be serving in the Army abroad. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

As I said just now, I do not wish to press the Amendment. I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Prolongation of expiring terms of service.

2. During the continuance of the present war, subsection (1) of section eighty-seven of the Army Act, and subsection (5) of section nine of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, (which relate to prolongation of service in certain cases), shall have effect as if after the words "not exceeding twelve months" where they occur in those subsections respectively there were inserted the words "or in the case of men whose time for discharge occurs before the end of the present war not exceeding the duration of the war." Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of men who when their time for discharge occurs have served a period of twelve years or more and have attained the age of forty-one years.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before the noble Lord (Lord Haversham) moves the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, there is one point I want to raise. I am not certain whether I understand the clause, because it is largely a clause by reference. I refer to the words at the end of the clause part of which Lord Haversham proposes to leave out. He proposes to delete the words" and have attained the age of forty-one years," which I suppose would mean an immense extension of the compulsion under the Act. That is a very large question which I shall not enter upon at the moment. I want rather to put forward a plea on behalf of the other class who are in this alternative. The words read— Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of men who when their time for discharge occurs have served a period of twelve years or more… It seems to me that men who have served twelve years ought to have greater latitude and ought to be given their freedom. I think the provision is very hard indeed upon a man who has served his term of twelve years. He has been through, perhaps, a large part of this present campaign; he has obtained his discharge already and has gone back to civil life, in which he may be in good or, at any rate, lucrative employment. I do not think it would affect a great many in numbers, but certainly it would mean a great deal in the way of hardship. I have had many letters on this subject. I think it would be better if the words were to read, "Have served a period of twelve years or more or attained the age of forty-one years." My object is to excuse those who have, in colloquial language, "done their bit" voluntarily and willingly, and who have gone back to civil life, to whom it would be a serious matter if they were taken back to the Colours.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I am glad to hear from my noble friend opposite that he entertains exactly the same views as I do—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is the noble Lord going to move his Amendment?

LORD HAVERSHAM

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then may I first say, on the point which my noble friend (Lord Balfour) has raised, that while I have a profound respect for my noble friend's authority I hope the Government will not consider favourably the suggestion he has made. I do not think my noble friend knows what a tremendous hole it would make in a very valuable provision in the Bill if his suggestion were acceded to. The man who has served twelve years would be in the very prime of life, a man in the thirties; the very best men you could have in the Army, and probably many of them non-commissioned officers. Indeed, to lose those men would be about as heavy a blow as you could strike at this Bill. I do not think my noble friend knows how many men this would apply to—an enormous number—and how good a class of men they are.

LORD SANDHURST

I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Balfour proposes to move an Amendment or not. I am not quite certain whether he realises that this provision applies only to men who are in the Army at the present time. I may, perhaps, shortly repeat what I said on the Second Reading. If a man has had twelve years service and is forty-one years of age, he will re-engage for one year only; if he is less than forty-one, he will re-engage until the end of the war. But those men who, I think, were in the mind of the noble Lord—men who have retired from the Army—are in the same position as other people who will be recruited. They will also have the privilege, of course, of putting their case before a Tribunal, and if they have left the Army at a rank other than that of a private—that is to say, sergeant, corporal, or warrant officer—they will return to the Array in that rank if they have to rejoin.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I confess I did not understand the position now explained by the noble Lord. This Bill is largely legislation by reference, and I thought that the proviso as it stands had the effect of bringing back men who had served twelve years and gone into civil life without the slightest chance of pleading their case before a Tribunal. If the case of such a man can be heard, like that of any other man in civil life, before a Tribunal, then I am satisfied. If he is in the prime of life and in good health, I agree that he should take his chance.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I will now move my Amendment—to leave out the words "and have attained the age of forty-one years"—and I can assure the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) that I had not, and have not now, any intention of getting rid of these men whom I consider to be the very backbone of the Army—men of twelve and fifteen years service. They are the veterans who stiffen the battalions, of which they are the very cream and flower. My object is quite different from that. This is a clause which is intended to extend the service of both Regulars and Territorials. They are all bound to serve one year more than their contract when their country is in a state of war. But this clause alters that, and places it in the hands of the Army Council to call upon their services during the war. Then there is the proviso— Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of men who when their time for discharge occurs have served a period of twelve years or more and have attained the age of forty-one years. I do not in the least understand why that is put in. None of these men will have attained forty-one years. They will be men from thirty to thirty-three, having joined at the age of eighteen or twenty. Why do you want to keep them eight years or so more? And if they are not to be so liable, why put this in the Bill? It seems to me perfectly useless. I believe, as my noble friend opposite said, that it will apply to very few soldiers. It seems to me a bad provision to put into a Bill like this. It will be of no use to the Army Council, and yet will be binding on the soldier. The words "and have attained the age of forty-one years" constitute a very great restriction on the treatment which you mean to mete out to the soldier who has served twelve years and "done his bit."

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 19, leave out ("and have attained the age of forty-one years").—(Lord Haversham.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I venture to suggest to my noble friend that the effect of the clause is not so unreasonable as he supposes. Let us see what it does. Under the Army Act as my noble friend knows, when a man's time expires during war he is liable to an extension of one year. Under the Bill the rule will be that all extensions will be for the period of the war.

LORD HAVERSHAM

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We think that would press rather hardly on a particular class of man—the class of man, namely, who has reached the age of forty-one years and has put in twelve years service. We think that in his case, in order to deal a little more tenderly with him, his extension should be for one year only and not for the period of the war. I think that is not an unreasonable concession to make to a very meritorious class of soldier.

THE EARL OF DUNDONALD

May I explain the clause as I understand it? I think the clause refers necessarily to men who have come very near their forty-first year. The proviso runs— Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of men who when their time for discharge occurs have served a period of twelve years or more and have attained the age of forty-one years. I think you will see that the clause is correctly drawn to refer to men who have engaged for twenty-one years service, and perhaps are serving for an even longer period. I should like to say that I think the Government are behaving extremely liberally and fairly to men with the short period of service of twelve years in the bounties they are giving. The only point I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the position of the man who engaged with the country to serve a certain number of years for a pension. That man at the expiration of his period of service is entitled to draw his pension, and I think the country ought not to deviate one inch from its liability to those men. They are entitled to a pension under contract with the Government at the expiry of their term of twenty-one years, and to be absolutely fair these men ought to be entitled to draw, in addition to their pension, their pay of the rank in which they are now serving. That is the case in the Navy. The time-expired man in the Navy draws his pension plus his pay. I should be sorry if there is any grievance amongst these soldiers with regard to their treatment. We have a precedent in the treatment of officers. Officers who had retired from the Army and came back voluntarily to the Colours when war was declared draw their pension plus their pay. I see no reason whatever to differentiate between the treatment of the officer and the man who has enlisted for a pension.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I have decided to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Modification of exceptions from service.

3.—(1) Paragraph five of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall cease to have effect so far as it relates to men who have been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown on the termination of their period of service: Provided that where a man is transferred to the reserve in pursuance of the principal Act, or this Act he shall, if he has been so discharged from the military service of the Crown as a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, be restored to the military rank which he held immediately before the termination of his military service.

(2) Paragraph six of the first Schedule to the principal Act shall, on the first day of September nineteen hundred and sixteen, cease to apply to a man who has offered himself for enlistment and been rejected since the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen, if the Army Council are satisfied that he should again present himself for medical examination, and send him written notice to that effect before the first mentioned date.

(3) Subsection (5) of section two of the principal Act shall have effect as if the words "before the appointed date" were omitted therefrom.

LORD STRACHIE

I move to add at the end of subsection (2) the words, "Provided that a man shall not be recalled for re-examination who had already been thoroughly examined and his exemption recorded, and that the Army Council must give notice to any man to be recalled for re-examination before the 1st September." The noble Marquess behind me (Lord Salisbury) said that it was very much better to put Parliamentary pledges into a Bill than leave them in a vague way. I do not know that the words in my Amendment are the actual words, but they are very nearly those of the Under-Secretary of State for War in another place when the Bill was being rushed through late one night, and when it was pointed out that as the Bill stood it was very unfair that men who had been medically examined and rejected since August 14 last should be called up and perhaps made to travel at their own expense long distances, then only to be told once again that their services were not required.

It is not a Parliamentary pledge which has been broken by the Government but a statutory pledge, because rejected men were specially exempted by the Statute passed only last January. Now the Government come down to the House and say, "We will break this statutory obligation made to rejected men and make them come up again if we think fit to do so." I am, of course, aware that the Bill provides that the Army Council are to say whether a man should again present himself, but there is nothing to prevent the Army Council issuing a general circular to every man calling upon him to come up for re-examination. I cannot help thinking that it is very unfair not to give these men some statutory protection under the Bill.

We have to consider who these men are who are to be called up for re-examination. They are to a large extent men who were anxious to serve their country; men who came forward, not once, but two or three times, to be examined and were rejected. This only applies to men rejected since August 14 last year. Those men, it cannot be said, were examined in a careless way; on the contrary, they were examined very carefully indeed in many cases. It seems to me that these men, who were not shirkers in any sense of the word, should not be given the trouble and worry of being re-examined. I have received dozens of letters, although this Amendment has been on the Paper only a few days, from men who believed they were exempt under the statutory pledge made to them by the Government in the previous Bill. Some of them have married since, or set up in small businesses, or secured some permanent employment. Yet now, notwithstanding that these men thought themselves perfectly safe and were not shirkers at all, the Government come forward and break the whole of that down.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("Provided that a man shall not be recalled for re-examination who had already been thoroughly examined and his exemption recorded, and that the Army Council must give notice to any man to be recalled for re-examination before the 1st September").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD SANDHURST

The noble Lord's Amendment provides that a man shall not be called up for re-examination who has already been thoroughly examined and his examination recorded, and that the Army Council must give notice to any men to be recalled for re-examination before the 1st of September. I think the desire of the noble Lord about giving notice is met by a later subsection, in which it is laid down that the Army Council shall give notice about the 1st of September. AS regards the examination, it in difficult to determine what may be a thorough examination; but it will be remembered that the War Office have registers in which these men's names are entered. If a man has been entered as being thoroughly unfit for service—I will assume the case of a man with a paralysed arm or a paralysed leg, who can do useful work as a gardener, say—there would be no desire on the part of the War Office to call him up for re-examination. But as I ventured to remark on the Second Reading, the examinations were generally supposed to have been inadequate: and therefore it was considered necessary by the War Office, and by a great many other people, too, that those who had been rejected subsequent to August 15 should be called upon for a further examination. I do not myself see, subject to correction, that there is any statutory breach in such a proceeding. It is one of the requirements of the Service. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD STRACHIE

I certainly will not press the Amendment. I only rise to ask the noble Lord whether he adheres to the pledge given by the Under-Secretary of State for War. I know that Lord Sandhurst has no official connection with the War Office, but what he said seemed to whittle down the pledge given in the House of Commons, which was that men would not be called up for re-examination who had been thoroughly examined and who appeared as unfit in the official documents retained by the military authorities.

THE EARL OF DERBY

The necessity for this particular provision in the Bill has been made evident by the evidence which has been brought before us. In the first place, the noble Lord said he thought that when these men were examined there was adequate medical examination. I do not know on what he bases that statement. All I can say is that it is entirely contrary, I am sorry to say, to the facts of the case. There is no doubt whatever that the medical examination in most eases was of a very perfunctory nature. It is therefore necessary that these men should be called up again for medical examination. I have, of course, no right to speak on behalf of the War Office, but I think I can give the noble Lord this assurance—that he may be perfectly certain that men of whom there is a complete record that they are physically unfit for any form of service in His Majesty's Forces will most certainly not be called up for examination. The medical boards have quite enough to do without burdening themselves with the further examination of men whom their own records show to be useless for any kind of service.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE

The statement just made by the noble Earl opposite rather strengthens me in my view, because if it is the case that many of the men who voluntarily attested were not adequately examined it gives further ground for the suggestion I make in the Amendment which I now move, and which provides that men who have voluntarily attested for military service should have a like opportunity of appealing to a Local Tribunal on the ground of ill-health. The Local Tribunals, as your Lordships know, have to hear cases where exemption on the ground of ill-health is claimed by any person coming under the principal Act. I see a great many of these cases personally because I sit regularly on the Westminster Local Tribunal, and I think what I have to say on the subject is what is thought by all the members of that Tribunal.

Men who have been voluntarily attested very often put into their appeals the matter of ill-health, and frequently it is quite obvious to anybody on their appearance that they are men who are quite unfit. They allege in these cases sometimes that they have never been examined at all, and at other times that they have been very rapidly, and, as they think, inadequately examined. The cases of these men that come before a Tribunal and with which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal are often very difficult on personal grounds and sometimes on business grounds; but the case of ill-health, with which we have no jurisdiction, is frequently as plain as possible, and if only we might give a decision on the subject or send the case with the kind of authority which would come from us to the medical board and ask for the exemption of this person on the grounds he has put forward, it certainly would be very satisfactory to the Local Tribunal and I venture to think it would be only fair to the men.

As matters stand, the men who come in under the new Act have in this respect the advantage over those men who came forward in the early stages. While knowing quite well in some cases that it is as much as their lives are worth to go through ordinary training, nevertheless the men have gone forward and said they are willing and anxious to do any work for which they are fit; but they expect, of course, to get a reasonable and full examination on medical grounds. I need scarcely say—it has been already said over and over again—how very undesirable it is to have men going into training who are unfit and who break down and simply incur loss and expense to the country. I cannot conceive what difficulty there can be in carrying out what is proposed in my Amendment, since in so many cases the papers are actually before the Local Tribunal.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, after subsection (2) insert as a new subsection: Men who have been voluntarily attested for military service shall have the like right of appeal to a local tribunal on the ground of ill-health as is open to men to whom the principal Act and this Act apply."—(Lord Muir-Mackenzie.)

LORD SANDHURST

Voluntarily attested men are passed to Section B of the Army Reserve; they are therefore soldiers, and the question of their physical fitness is a matter to be determined by the Army medical boards. They are in a different position from men who, not having attested, are claiming that the Military Service Act should not apply to them. These men are not soldiers, and claim that owing to ill-health they ought not to be made soldiers. This claim they can put before the Local Tribunals under Section 2 of the principal Act. It is to be noticed that neither this Bill nor the principal Act applies to attested men. Arrangements, however, have been made by the War Office whereby the machinery of the Tribunals can be used by these men, and they can claim exemption on industrial grounds or on grounds of serious hardship. For the reasons given, these arrangements do not entitle an attested man to apply to a Tribunal for exemption on the ground of ill-health.

LORD JOICEY

I think that is a misfortune, because those of us who have had a great number of recruits from our own locality know that many men have been passed by the medical men who evidently have not had a proper examination and are perfectly unfit for military duties. They are, as Lord Muir-Mackenzie said, a great cost to the country. I have a hospital, and in it are two men who have never been able to go to the Front, and whose condition of health, had they been carefully and properly examined, would have prevented their being accepted for military service. It is a pity that some arrangement could not be arrived at to give such men an opportunity of a fresh medical examination, because they will never be of any real service as soldiers. I think there ought to be some means adopted to carry out the proposal in this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MILNER

It seems to me that the answer of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is based upon a pure technicality. This is a perfectly practical question. If it were held that the Local Tribunals were not fit judges of whether or not a man was strong enough to join the Army, that contention might possibly be maintained. But it cannot be maintained in view of the fact that in all cases under the Bill the Local Tribunals are to be the judges. If the Local Tribunals are fit to be judges of a man's condition of health if he is brought up under the Bill, why are they unfit to be judges in the case of a man who has already attested? If anything it is a slight advantage to the man to have his case decided by the Local Tribunal—not that he is more likely to get off that way, but because it is a simpler method of procedure; and if there is to be any slight advantage you should give it to the attested man rather than to the man who is compelled to come in.

In many cases the question of health is only one of the grounds which a man may bring forward in claiming exemption. He goes to the Local Tribunal. The Local Tribunal may think the other grounds insufficient, but they may think the ground of ill-health quite sufficient and be anxious to give him the exemption on that ground; but they are not able to do so in the case of an attested man. But if he were a compelled man, they would be able to do so. What is the consequence? The attested man has to go to another authority to have his claim on the ground of ill-health examined. This is not an imaginary case. I have known several cases of this kind. I knew one which occurred only the other day. A man went before a Local Tribunal claiming exemption on the ground of ill-health. The Tribunal were of opinion that he clearly ought to have it, but they had no power to grant it because he was an attested man. What happened? He was put to all the trouble of going before a military medical board, which has exempted him. I really think that if the noble Lord will go into it again he will see that this is a practical suggestion, and that the pure technicality on which he rejected it ought not to be allowed to stand.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Personally I strongly desire that, if possible, the lot of voluntarily attested men should be made easier than that of compulsorily attested men, and I wish it had been far more marked in this Bill than it has been. At the same time I do not think that this particular Amendment is of so much value as the noble Lord who moved it thinks. I believe I am right in saying that the intention in putting this provision in the original Act was to prevent the scandal—it had been nothing more or less than that—of bringing up men who were in lunatic asylums or homes for incurables or men of that kind. It was therefore settled that the Local Tribunals in those cases, if they had them presented to them, should of themselves let the men off from making any appearance before them. But if all the cases in question are to go before a Local Tribunal, how is that Tribunal to decide whether or not the man is medically fit for service? Are they going to accept the certificate of the man's civil practitioner? If so, I think it leaves the position open to the greatest abuse.

What will happen in these cases where an appeal is made on medical grounds to the Local Tribunal? The Local Tribunal, in practically all cases, submits it to the military medical board for its decision as to whether or not the man is fit. If they do not do so and give him his exemption, in most cases the military representative appeals against the decision, with the same result that he conies before the military medical board, and that really is the only body which can properly determine whether a man is in such physical health as to fit him for service.

Lord Joicey mixed up with this something which is in a way cognate—namely, the passing into the Army of many men who should never have been passed in. I entirely agree. I can think of nothing which has been more expensive to the State than the passing in of many men who one would have thought ordinary care would have shown were quite unfit for military service. Everything that can be done is being done to prevent that, and I hope that action will be taken to expedite the discharge from the Army of those men who are medically unfit. But, much as I should like to see men who voluntarily attested assisted, I do not honestly think that the noble Lord's proposal would put them in a better position than they are in at the present moment. If I did think so, I should most certainly vote with him.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We are rather at a disadvantage in discussing this Amendment, because my noble friend who moved it will remember that the Amendment now is not in the shape in which it appeared at first upon the Paper. The Amendment as originally put on the Paper by my noble friend had reference to men who had been voluntarily attested for military service, and said that they should have the like right of appeal to a Local Tribunal, without the reference to grounds of ill-health.

LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE

On what Paper does such a monstrosity as that appear?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The fact remains that the monstrosity was on the Paper which was circulated, and naturally we were—

LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE

Here is the Amendment that I moved, and it was on the Paper. I read it from the Paper this evening. I think the noble Marquess must have been reading from a thing called a Marshalled List of Amendments, and they are marshalled in a most extraordinary manner, the principal word of my Amendment being left out. I sent the Amendment to Lord Sandhurst, and he knows quite well what it is.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am afraid that the version of it which came, not only before me, but others of us here engaged in examining these Amendments, was the Amendment which my noble friend describes as a monstrosity, and it was only this afternoon that we became aware of what the true text of the Amendment was. I mention that to explain why we are not as fully prepared to deal with the matter as we might have been. I quite agree that the objection to the Amendment as now drawn is a less serious one than the objection to the original Amendment.

LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE

May I interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment? I do not know exactly what my position is about the Amendment. I read out to the House the Amendment that I moved. The whole point is "ill-health," and if anybody is going to discuss it leaving out that word I do not know where I am. I am sure the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) understood that it was on ill-health.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We are perfectly well aware that the Amendment before the House now is the Amendment including the reference to ill-health; there is no doubt whatever about that. What I was going to say was that after hearing what was said by my noble friend Lord Derby, who is very familiar with this matter, I certainly remain under the impression that the insertion of these words would not have any material effect in achieving the purpose which my noble friend desires. As Lord Derby pointed out, the decision must rest in a case of this kind, where there is an allegation of ill-health, not with the Tribunal but with the medical board, and that is the quarter from which the matter will be finally disposed of. For that reason, and knowing as I do that the Secretary of State regards this as a very dangerous Amendment, I hope your Lordships will not accept it.

Let me add that so far as the desire to expedite the case of men who wish to be relieved of all suspense in regard to these matters is concerned, we are all of us agreed that everything should be done to shorten that period of suspense and to leave it open to men who really are disabled and unfit for service to come forward at the earliest possible moment and obtain release from their suspense. With that object I understand that the men will be invited forthwith to send in their papers to the nearest recruiting offices in order that where there is a strong conclusive case the man may at once be notified that he is not eligible for service.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have the misfortune on the present occasion of not agreeing with my noble friend Lord Derby. I cannot understand why the Government should think the Amendment so very important, but on the face of it I think it just. I do not quite know how my noble friend Lord Derby explained the presence of this ground in the principal Act. I think he said it applied mainly to lunatics, but I do not think that is the case. It is not the case which has been worked out in practice, as I know from my own experience. As a matter of fact, in the operation of the principal Act it is a ground upon which a man may apply for exemption that he is in ill-health. That is on the face of the Act, and it is used. Do the Government object to that? No. Because they have an opportunity in this very Bill of changing it, if they objected; but they are going to continue it in the case of all married men who are to be compulsorily enlisted under the Bill now before us. If the Government objected to the proposal, they would have altered it in respect of all these new additions to the ranks.

But there remains one class, neither compelled single men nor compelled married men, but voluntarily attested married men, and they say, "Why should not we have a like claim?" It is not open to the Government to say that these men cannot come before the Tribunals at all, because they provide that the voluntarily attested man should, in respect of the first two grounds of exemption, have exactly the same right of access to the Tribunals as the compelled man. If a man says that he is indispensable for a work of national importance, or that his case is a particularly hard one, although he is a voluntarily attested man he can come before the Tribunal. But when Incomes to the third ground and says "My health does not permit," a difference is made. Why should that difference be made? That is the case.

There is one other thing which I should like to press upon the Government, and which has not yet been mentioned. It may be said. "The attested married man came forward voluntarily; he did as he thought right; why should he have any claim?" The reason is this, that over and over again throughout the country the married man—I mean before this Bill was born or even thought of—was told, "Unless you attest you will not be allowed to go before the Tribunals and will have no opportunity of pleading your case." I hope that will not be denied, because I know it.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Hear hear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have seen it over and over again in papers which I have had before me at the Central Tribunal. The man was told, "If you attest you shall have the right of access to the Tribunals; if you do not attest you will be gobbled up without any power of complaint"; and upon the faith of that assurance, made in the name of the Government right throughout the country, he did attest. Now the man comes forward and says, "I attested on the ground that I should have access to the Tribunals. I find that in respect of ground one and ground two I have access, but I have no access on ground three. Why not?" My noble friend opposite proposes in this Amendment to put that right. I do not think it is very important; because, as my noble friend has said, there are of course the military medical boards. But certainly on the logic of the symmetry of the legislation my noble friend Lord Muir-Mackenzie is right.

EARL KITCHENER

I think it is of considerable importance that the Government should not give way on this Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Derby has explained, the case does come up when Tribunals are able to leave out of account a large class of men. The great object we have is to save time in all these operations. Therefore the clause in the Bill was required to pass large classes of men about whom there is no possible question. When there is a question the matter has to be decided by a medical board, and therefore there is no necessity for the case to go to a Tribunal first.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I move to insert a new subsection after subsection (3). This is, I suppose, one of two Amendments to which the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) referred as standing in my name which put plain issues before the Committee. This proposal is to amend the First Schedule to the original Act by inserting a new definite ground or statement of exemption. It follows on, at the place where I propose to introduce it, the exemption of clergymen and ministers of religion. I propose to exempt in the same way any man who conscientiously objects to combative or auxiliary duty: and I venture, if this would make any difference to the Government's acceptance, to add to my new subsection as it appears on the Paper the words "and is occupied on work of national importance."

I submit this Amendment as making clear what I think ought to have been made clear from the first, the ground of exemption of the genuine conscientious objector, putting it, as I think it ought to be put, on the same lines as the ground of exemption in the case of clergymen and ministers of religion. Why do we exempt clergymen? Partly, I suspect, because we believe that not a few of them would feel some conflict of conscience in undertaking military duty. But upon the back of that you get this also, that they are engaged upon work of national importance; and if you get these two qualifications established you then, I think, lay the basis of exemption for clergymen and ministers of religion. Now the conscientious objector is sometimes said to be a person who must be connected with some religious body, and I believe that among the vagaries of some of the Tribunals who have had their case under consideration this has been put to them," If you are not a Quaker or not a Christadelphian, you cannot have a conscientious objection." The man who comes forward and says, "I am a Socialist, and my theory of civic duty compels me to believe that war is a thing so injurious to the State that in no circumstances can I enter into the support of it or take a part in its conduct," is as truly conscientious, I am sure, as if he had affirmed himself to be a Quaker or a Christadelphian. It rests upon the basis of the man's view of his duty to society, and to something higher than society—the law which he feels incumbent to obey of right and wrong; and if that had been put forward in the original Act and it had been made plain to the Tribunals that they had nothing to investigate except the sincerity of the position thus taken we should have been relieved from a great deal of the embarrassment to which we have been and are subjected.

I want to get this cause of confusion, of excitement, of stubborn resistance, and of all the difficulties with which the Government are confronted, removed; and for that purpose I see nothing so precise as inserting in the Schedule of the principal Act, coming immediately after the subsection which exempts clergymen and ministers of religion, a subsection exempting any man who has a conscientious objection to combatant or auxiliary service and who is occupied on work of national importance. The Amendment which I now put forward would make plain the position which is assumed, and which men of affairs would, I think, be wise in recognising and assenting to, by the genuine conscientious objector, and would remove that difficulty from the subsequent administration of the Act.

Amendment moved— After subsection (3) insert as a new subsection: The First Schedule to the original Act shall be amended by adding after section four: ' (4A) Any man found by any tribunal to have a conscientious objection to combatant or auxiliary service and is occupied on work of national importance.'"—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

Before my noble friend rises to reply, might I point out that if we spend time in discussing this Amendment we shall be out of order in discussing the following one. There are two great flaws, if I may venture to point them out to Lord Courtney. The first is that he gives complete exemption by this Amendment to any man who is found by a Tribunal to have a conscientious objection, whereas in his subsequent Amendment he proposes that the power should be taken away from the Tribunal and given to a Special Committee.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

One is for the future, and one is for existing cases.

LORD PARMOOR

Might I point out the limited scope of this Amendment? What it says is, "Any man found by any Tribunal to have a conscientious objection to combatant or auxiliary service." There you are dealing with a man who is found to be a genuine person, and who, in the opinion of the statutory Tribunal, has a conscientious objection to combatant or auxiliary service. I should not have been in favour of the Amendment unless the noble Lord who moved it had added "and is engaged on work of national importance." I have had a great many communications from conscientious objectors, and they all want to make it quite clear that they do not desire to obtain exemption front work of national importance; in fact, they all desire to undertake work of national importance, and many of them are engaged on such work at the present moment. All they claim is that where a Tribunal has found, as it is entitled to find under the policy of the Act, that they have a conscientious objection to combatant or auxiliary service they shall be exempted as of right, which appears to be the policy of the Act, from that form of service. It is important that the true view of the conscientious objector should be understood, because it is often put that he wants to shirk his duties at a time of great national crisis. I do not believe that that is his standpoint at all. He wants to take his part in national service, and he says "I can do that very well in many directions; and if the Tribunal has found that I am right in my conscientious objection do let me do that service which I desire to do in common with my other fellow-citizens."

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We regard this Amendment as a very dangerous one, and I can hold out no hope of our agreeing to it. What the Amendment does is this. The noble Lord who moved it desires to include in the schedule of exceptions in the principal Act a fresh category, a category of conscientious objectors who have satisfied a Tribunal that they are conscientious objectors. Under the Amendment men of this class would become excepted from the operation of the Act—that is to say, they would be taken completely out of it; they would be no longer liable to any of the obligations which the Act imposes. I would ask your Lordships to consider what that really means. A man who had become excepted under this arrangement would, by a stroke of the pen, be liberated from all the conditions which the Tribunals at present can attach to men exempted from the operation of the Act; such a man would obtain relief not only in respect of combatant duties, but of non-combatant duties. He could not even be called upon as an alternative to undertake work of national importance.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I am ready to have those words added; indeed I moved them.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I think we must discuss the Amendment which is before the House; it is a great inconvenience to change a matter of this kind at short notice. Then it is impossible to consider this proposal except in connection with the further proposal which follows in another Amendment standing in the noble Lord's name, the Amendment under which Special Committees are to be set up for dealing with cases of this class, upon an understanding that any conscientious objector may claim to have his case taken away from the ordinary Tribunal and referred to one of these new Committees. That seems to us a dangerous and unnecessary innovation, and it is one which I think implies a very undeserved slur upon the existing Tribunals.

The noble Lord suggests that the case of conscientious objectors is on all fours with that of clergymen and ministers of religion, who are already excepted from the operation of the Act. I venture to think that the case of clergymen and ministers is not by any means on all fours with that of the conscientious objector. In the first place, there is not much difficulty in ascertaining whether a clergyman is really a clergyman or not. It is by no means easy to determine whether a man who pleads a conscientious objection is an honest objector or not. We have every reason to know, on the contrary, that there are numbers of these men whose objection is not conscientious but is dictated by a desire to evade an obligation which is assumed readily by their fellow-citizens. Under the Act as it now stands there is room for great elasticity of treatment in regard to conscientious objectors. They may be relieved of the obligation to undertake combatant duties, they may be handed over to non-combatant duties, or, again, they may be employed upon national work which is without any kind of suspicion of being of a military character. There is really nothing whatever wrong with the law in this matter; and as for the manner in which the law is administered, as I have said before in this House I do not see why we should not as a general rule put confidence in the Tribunals. They are daily acquiring greater experience; every effort is being made to secure uniformity of practice as between one Tribunal and another; and as I tried to explain to your Lordships earlier this evening, in cases where it can be clearly shown that there has been a miscarriage of justice we are prepared to provide the means of obtaining a reconsideration of the case. Our view is that there is no occasion for so extensive a change in the law as the noble Lord proposes, and if he puts this Amendment to the House we shall certainly oppose it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not rise to support the Amendment. I entirely agree with my noble friend in what he has said about this Amendment and the other one that is to follow it, although I quite understand the spirit; in which the noble Lord has moved it. I rise to ask my noble friend whether he is in a position to answer the questions which I put to him in the earlier part of the evening. I mean the questions as to whether regulations will be issued prescribing the method of appeal in cases where appeal has been vexatiously refused by the intermediate Tribunal, and as to whether the President of the Local Government Board has in fact power to order a re-trial of those cases.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I would prefer not to answer the questions now.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD DEVONPORT

I wish to ask the noble Lord (Lord Sandhurst) whether he proposes to introduce any clause regarding the right of appeal possessed by the; men who are dealt with in subsection (1) of Clause 3 under the words "If he has been so discharged from the military service of the Crown as a warrant-officer or non-commissioned officer, he shall be restored to the military rank which he held immediately before the termination of his military service." I think the noble Lord said that the men who come within the purview of this clause would have the right to appeal to the Tribunals. I am aware that under the principal Act there is a right of appeal, but it seems to me that the ground upon which these men can appeal is so very narrow that it would be wiser and a saving of the work of the Appeal Tribunals if the limitation were expressed in a clause. If you examine the basis of the entitlement to appeal which men have under the principal Act you will see that it is very wide, and I scarcely think that any of the conditions can apply to these men excepting the one based upon ill-health. Therefore I suggest that it would be worth while to limit the basis of appeal in the case of this particular class of man.

If we refer to Section 2 (1) of the principal Act we find that a man has the right of appeal— on the ground that it is expedient in the national interests that he should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged or in which he wishes to be engaged. That would not apply to this class of man at all. Another right of appeal is— on the ground that serious hardship would ensue, if the man were called up for Army Service, owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position. I scarcely think that could apply in such a case as this, as the man has come away so recently from the Army. Another ground is that of a conscientious objection. Of course, he would not claim under that. Seeing that there are 5,000 of these men per month who have left, I cannot help thinking it is worth the consideration of my noble friend whether he should not introduce into this Bill some limitation of the grounds upon which this particular class of man can appeal.

LORD SANDHURST

This clause has to do with men who have been discharged from the military service of the Crown on the termination of their period of service prior to the war, and these men, as I explained on the Second Reading, are in the position of any others. They have the right to go to a Tribunal and appeal if they wish; and, as I said just now, when they rejoin, having left the Army before the war began, they have the right to go back to the positions they held before as non-commissioned officers.

LORD DEVONPORT

The clause does not apply to men who left the Army before the war; it applies to men who have completed their service during the war, and who are now going to be recalled to the Colours.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Perhaps I may explain. The clause applies to those men who having, whether before the war or during the war, terminated their service—which in the case of men who were actually serving during the war had been extended by one year—have returned to civil life. They are just as much members of the civil population as the noble Lord and myself, and they are entitled to all the rights of appeal to the Tribunals to which any other individual in the civil population is entitled. This clause does one thing specially for them, and that is that where these particular men are called up they are given on their return to the Colours the rank in which they left the Service.

Clause 3 agreed to.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I move to insert a new clause after Clause 3, though I cannot say that I have much hope of its adoption. The noble and gallant Earl the Secretary of State for War read a statement as to what the Government propose to do to meet the particular difficulty with which my new clause is concerned. I do not understand how the plan of the Government will be worked out. My plan is imperfect, but I think it would work. What the Government plan is and how it would work is to my mind very uncertain. I propose now to move the Amendment, but not to engage in any discussion about it. But it may serve as an opportunity for further explanation that any member of the Government is disposed to give of the way in which the difficulty is to be met by them.

Amendment moved— After Clause3, insert as a new clause: . Regulations made under the Second Schedule of the principal Act shall provide for the establishment of one or more special committees to deal with claims for exemption made on the ground of conscientious objection, and any application for a certificate of exemption on such grounds shall be referred by the tribunal to whom it is made to any such committee, and the recommendation of any such committee on the application shall be binding on any tribunal constituted under the principal Act. It shall be competent for any such Committee to hear appeals now pending or in which a right to appeal has been refused and to order that any applicant be sent to a civil prison in any case in which he refuses to obey the order of any such Committee."—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am afraid we cannot agree to this Amendment. In our view it is very closely bound up with the Amendment which was moved a short time ago by the noble Lord, and which was not accepted by the House.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I will not press it to a Division, but I prefer to have it negatived rather than withdraw it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 4:

Permissions as to certificates of exemption.

4.—(1) Where a decision of a local tribunal has been varied on appeal to the appeal tribunal, any certificate of exemption granted in pursuance thereof shall be reviewed or renewed only by the appeal tribunal by whom the decision has been varied or by such other appeal tribunal as may be provided by regulations on an application made direct to that tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the review or renewal of certificates of exemption shall apply accordingly.

(2) A certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the condition that the certificate shall not be renewable or open to review except on an application made with the leave of the tribunal, and unless leave is so given, the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal or review of certificates shall not apply to a certificate granted subject to such a condition.

The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final.

LORD SANDHURST

My first Amendment is in subsection (2). If the final decision of the Tribunal is incapable of being reviewed, the military representative cannot ask for a withdrawal of the certificate if the circumstances change. It is felt by the War Office that Tribunals should not be in a position to grant absolute exemption which cannot be reviewed by the military authorities. The object of the Amendment is to give the Tribunal power to negative the right of variation but not to negative the right of withdrawal, thus leaving open to the military the right to press for withdrawal in proper cases.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, leave out ("review") and insert ("variation").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAVERSHAM moved to insert, after the word "Tribunal" in the middle of subsection (2), the words "granting it." The noble Lord said: Mine is merely a verbal insertion, and I hope my noble friend will accept it, because he uses exactly the same words himself four lines lower down. The object is to state which Tribunal it is which will grant review. I want to make it quite clear that it is an Appeal Tribunal alone which can give the certificate.

LORD SANDHURST

If the noble Lord will allow me to substitute other words, the Government will accept his proposal. The words which he proposes to put in are "granting it," Instead, I would ask him to accept "on whose decision the certificate has been so granted." It means the same, thing.

LORD HAVERSHAM

I move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, after ("tribunal") insert ("on whose decision the certificate has been so granted").—(Lord Haversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, leave out ("review") and insert ("variation").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDHURST

The new subsection standing in my name is to make good an undertaking which I gave on the Second Reading, and to make it perfectly clear that the Tribunals have the power of total exemption.

Amendment moved— Page 3, after line 17, insert the following new subsection: (3) It is hereby declared that the power to grant special certificates of exemption in the case of an application on conscientious grounds under subsection (3) of section 2 of the principal Act is additional to and not in derogation of the general power conferred by that Act to grant an absolute, conditional or temporary certificate in such cases."—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDHURST

My next Amendment is not much more than drafting. The power of the Local Government Board to settle any difficulties arising in relation to the Tribunals is now limited to Local Tribunals. Difficulties have arisen not only with reference to Local Tribunals but also with regard to Appeal Tribunals, and it would be convenient if the powers of the Local Government Board could be extended. As far as the law is concerned, this could be done by including in the Repeal Schedule the repeal of the word "Local." But from the point of view of the practice of Parliament it is most important that no repeal should be included in the Schedule which makes any change in the law unless there is a distinct enactment making a change in the law which renders repeal possible.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new subsection: (4) Paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as if for the expression "local tribunals" wherever that expression occurs there were substituted the word tribunals.'"—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I can explain in a very few words the new Clause which I propose to insert after Clause 4. There are two roads by which a man can keep out of compulsory service—if he is entitled to, I mean. In the first place, he can go before the Tribunals and plead certain reasons for exemption. These are contained in Section 2 of the principal Act. But there are certain other grounds excepting him from the operation of the Act, altogether, which may be pleaded before, any Court of Law. Those are contained in the First Schedule to the principal Act. The, exemptions, as your Lordships are aware, are on such grounds as being necessary for work of national importance or that service would constitute great hardship in the man's financial or domestic position. Then there are the reasons by which he is excepted altogether under the other branch of the Act. If he comes before a Court of Law and says "I am a minister of religion," or "I am only on a visit to this country," and if he can satisfy the Court of that, it would except him from the Act.

The two methods are independent, but in practice they are found to overlap a little; and in this way. A man comes before a Tribunal to ask for exemption. He may have several grounds. He may say that it is a case of great hardship; but he may also say, "I am only resident in this country on a visit. I came here for a year to look after my father's business, and I am going back to Australia afterwards." Now when the Tribunal come to consider this case they are allowed to entertain the first ground of objection, under Section 2 of the principal Act; but they are not allowed to entertain the other ground, because it does not come under Section 2 but under the Schedule. So they may have to say to the applicant, "We find that you are not exempt on the ground of hardship, but if we could we should certainly find that you are excepted on the other ground. We have, however, no jurisdiction. You must wait until you are summoned by the military authority. Then when you are brought up in the Police Court you can plead the exception, and if you satisfy the magistrate you will get off." Now that procedure is very clumsy and very vexatious, and it is a great nuisance to the, man, whose application, by my hypothesis, is bona fide.

By the simple change in the law which I propose, all these exceptions could be permitted to be considered by the Tribunals. If they find that a man is a minister of religion, or that he is on a visit to the country, or that he comes under the other exceptions, they ought to be able to say "The Legislature does not want to give you the trouble of coming before two Courts of Law. Therefore we will give you the exemption under the powers which this new clause grants." I hope I have explained the Amendment clearly, but I should like to add a general word. Of course, the whole of this legislation, although absolutely necessary, is very vexatious to people. The great thing is to make it as smooth as possible, and, wherever you can, to take the sources of difficulty and irritation out of the road of the applicant. The applicant does not like coming before two Courts, and he does not like to be hauled before a Police Court at all. He is a bona fide person; he is, say, a minister of religion; and it is not suitable that he should be hauled before a Police Court. It is far better that he should be able to get exception on this ground from a Tribunal. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Insert as a new clause: Amendment of s. 2 (1) of the principal Act. . In section two, subsection (1) of the principal Act after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following ' or ' (e) On the ground that he is within one of the exceptions set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, of the First Schedule to this Act, as amended by any subsequent enactment.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER)

It is easy to understand the reasons which have led the noble Marquess to put forward this Amendment, but I trust that he will see, on reflection, that it would not advance the purpose which I know he desires to serve. As the matter stands—the noble Marquess stated it quite accurately—there are two distinct sets of exemptions obtained under the Statute. There are the people who, by virtue of the First Schedule, are outside the ambit of the Act altogether; and there are the people who, under Section 2, can obtain exemption only by going before the Tribunals. In effect, what this Amendment proposes is that you should enable the Tribunals to grant certificates in respect of the people who are specified in the Schedule. The first thing, of course, that would happen would be that you will increase the work of the Tribunals; and that, by itself is a formidable objection.

It is impossible to overlook the fact that this Act applies only to people who are reluctant to serve. They may think they have very good reasons for their reluctance, but they are reluctant to serve; and there can be no doubt that under this Amendment a far greater proportion of those people than before would take advantage of the opportunity of appealing to the Tribunals, Now if you are going to block your Tribunals at all, you will block them for everybody. You cannot keep them partially open for a certain class of people, and closed for others. If the Tribunals are congested with work, they will arrest the whole operation of the Act; and if you stop the working of the Act even for weeks you will do great harm. That is the reason why you should not throw on the Tribunals any further work than they have at the moment. Is there any real advantage to be gained which would compensate for that difficulty? I do not know quite what advantage the noble Marquess thinks he will gain by his Amendment. He says it will enable people who are within the exceptions of the Schedule to get a certificate to that effect. Let us look for a moment at the exceptions. "Members of His Majesty's regular or reserve forces, or of the forces raised by the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions." The noble Marquess does not suggest for a moment that they want to come before the Tribunal?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No; no question arises about them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Then "Men ordinarily resident…in Great Britain for the purpose only of their education or for some other special purpose." Should you compel all those people to come before a Tribunal to get exemption?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not compel them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Why should you enable them to? They may never be disturbed at all. What advantage do they get? They have already gone before Tribunals, and I should have thought the Tribunals would have been sufficiently harassed to-day with what they have to do. If the noble Marquess desired to abolish the First Schedule of the principal Act altogether, to cut it out of the Act and put it into the second section, then I could have understood his Amendment; but if he desires to keep the distinction between Section 2 and the First Schedule as it is at the present moment, I should have thought his proposal merely meant the overlapping of the two provisions, from which no reasonable advantage could be obtained.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I think the noble and learned Lord has overstated the change which my noble friend proposes. A man comes before the Tribunal with a conscientious objection, we will say, and the Tribunal overrules it. He then claims exemption as a minister of religion, and for that he must go to the Police Court. Surely now that you have charged the Tribunals with so many and great labours, the very small addition that would be caused by enabling the different questions relating to the same man to be decided by the same authority would be a great advantage. I think the noble and learned Lord altogether overrates the amount of extra work that would be thrown on the Tribunals.

LORD PARMOOR

I agree with the Lord Chancellor that it would be overlap ping jurisdiction. Supposing the Tribunal refused, the applicant would still be entitled to the advantage of what I call the exception section. Therefore, he would really have two trials before two Tribunals, whereas the body to decide is the Tribunal which deals with the exemptions, not the authority which deals with the exceptions.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The Lord Chancellor has said that I want to attract everybody before the Tribunals. I happen to have experience of these cases. My noble friend beside me (Lord Midleton) has put a common case. You have a man who claims to have a conscientious objection and also to be a minister of religion. That has happened several times before us, and your Lordships will not be surprised that it should be so. You have a man who has very deep religious convictions and who belongs to some denomination of which he is a preacher. He comes with a conscientious objection, and that is overruled. But then he says "I am a minister of religion." The case has to be at once laid aside, because the Tribunal cannot entertain that. He must wait until he is hauled before the Police Court. Why should you force that man to be hauled before the Police Court?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

He is not.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The very fact that the military representative disputes his claim makes it necessary.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The military authorities dispute his claim to be a conscientious objector. They would not pursue him as a minister of religion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They will get him as a soldier if they can. That is what they are out for.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No doubt.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

And they will do it. This is not an imaginary case. It is a case which has happened in practice—I have seen it many times—and I suggest my Amendment as a very small help towards working the Act. I do not say that it is of sufficient importance for me to press it upon the Government if they will not have it, but I think they had better make the working of the Act as smooth as possible.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5:

Amendment of s. 2 (3) of principal Act.

5. The provision in section two, subsection (3) of the principal Act that no certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing in or re-entering into employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment shall not apply to a certificate of exemption granted on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service.

LORD SANDHURST

My Amendment to this clause is merely verbal to put right an obvious slip during the passage of the Bill through the other House.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 21, leave out ("re-entering") and insert ("entering").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Amendment of s. 3 (3) of the principal Act.

6. Subsection (3) of section three of the principal Act shall as respects certificates which cease to be in force after the date of the passing of this Act apply only in the case of a man who has been engaged in an occupation certified by a government department to be work of national importance, or whose conditions of employment have been subject to the provisions of section seven of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and in all other cases the subsection shall be construed as if "two weeks" were substituted for "two months" and as if the words "unless in the meantime the man has made an application for a renewal of his certificate" were substituted for the words "unless in the meantime the man has obtained a renewal of his certificate."

LORD REAY had three Amendments on the Paper, the effect of which would be to make Clause 6 read as follows— Subsection (3) of section three of the principal Act shall as respects certificates which cease to be in force after the date of the passing of this Act apply only in the case of men who have been engaged in an occupation certified by a government department to be work of national importance, and who were engaged in such an occupation before the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen, and in the case of men whose conditions of employment have been subject to the provisions of section seven of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and who were in the same employment or engaged in the same or similar occupation before the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen, and in all other cases the subsection shall be construed as if "two weeks" were substituted for "two months," and as if the words "unless in the meantime the man has made an application for a renewal of his certificate" were substituted for the words "unless in the meantime the man has obtained a renewal of his certificate.

The noble Lord said: The object of this clause of the Bill as originally introduced was to curtail the two months which was allowed under the original Act for the renewal of a certificate of exemption in the case of men whose certificates ceased to have effect owing to the lapse of the conditions on which the certificates were granted. These were principally men whose certificates of exemption depended on being employed in certain work, and whose certificates ceased to be effective when they were out of employment. An Amendment moved by the Labour Party was accepted in another place which considerably cut down the effect of the clause and practically limits the curtailment of the two months to unskilled labour. This limitation is open to objection on the ground that it will considerably delay the employment of men in the Army who are being "combed out" of munition works and other reserved employments.

The object of the Amendments standing in my name is to modify to some extent objections on this ground by preserving the full period of two months only in the case of men who can prove the bona fides of their occupation by the fact that they were similarly employed before compulsion came on the tapis or before the initiation of the Derby Scheme on August 15, 1915."Men who were not employed before that date in reserved employments will have a fortnight to make an application for the renewal of their certificates and in addition, in case they make such an application, the time taken in dealing with the application before they can be called up; and it cannot be said that any hardship will ensue in their case. On the other hand the real objection that men who have gone into this kind of work in order to evade military service acquire specially favourable terms is met, and it will be possible to turn these men into soldiers without undue delay. I believe I can commend these Amendments to the House as being a simple and rational solution of the difficulty which was pointed out when this Bill was read a second time. I beg to move the first of my three Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("a man who has") and insert ("men who have").—(Lord Reay.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord's first Amendment proposes to leave out the words "a man who has." In order to safeguard Lord Miner's Amendment which comes next, in case the noble Lord's Amendment is not adopted, I propose that only the deletion of two words should be put.

VISCOUNT MILKER

As I have an Amendment on this clause [the noble Viscount's Amendment was to delete from the clause the words "who has been engaged in an occupation certified by a Government Department to be work of national importance or"] perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I detain you for a few moments on this question. I may say that when I put down my Amendment I had not seen the Amendment of the noble Lord, and I was not aware that any Amendment was going to be moved from the opposite side of the House. I am not specially enamoured of my own Amendment. I only put it down in order that this very doubtful clause might not pass without consideration in this House. It seems to me that what has happened is that a very objectionable addition to the proposal originally made by the Government in the House of Commons slipped through in that House. I cannot help thinking that it was by something in the nature of a "fluke" that this alteration was effected, because I observe that the original clause of the Government was debated at considerable length in Committee and was not altered. Then there was again a long debate on Report, and right at the end a very important change was made in the clause.

Having read through as carefully as I can the speeches made in the House of Commons on the subject, it seems to me perfectly clear that the alteration made on Report went far beyond the difficulty which it was intended to meet. The only argument which was brought forward against the clause as originally proposed by the Government was the danger of what is called "industrial compulsion," but what I should prefer to call "victimisation" It is not a question of industrial compulsion at all; the question is the danger of the victimisation of a particular workman or set of workmen by the master making use of his power, especially under the Munitions Act, of turning them out without a certificate, in consequence of which they might be pressed for the Army without having time to look for other employment, although they really were men who by virtue of their special skill ought to be employed in some other war work or in the maintenance of some essential industry. We are all of one mind, I am sure, in this House in wishing to prevent this victimisation. But what this clause does is to give every man, whether the lapse of his certificate of exemption is due to his employer's action or not, and even where the lapse of his certificate of exemption is due to action on the part of the military authorities in bringing out the fact that he is not a skilled man and not really required for any essential object of industry—the clause gives even that man two months grace after his certificate lapses. Obviously as it stands now the clause is a most serious obstacle to that process of "combing out" to which such great importance is attached—I believe rightly attached—by the Government at the present time.

This is not a small question, like some of those which we have been discussing this evening. It is a very big question indeed; it may cause considerable delay in obtaining thousands of men. More than that, it may cause their being lost altogether, because obviously it is much more difficult to keep track of this large number of men for two months than it would be for only a fortnight. Is it really necessary to give more than a fortnight at all in these cases? I observe that Mr. Barnes, speaking in the House of Commons on this subject, said— In the present state of the labour market we all know that no man need be out of work for a fortnight. I suppose that when he said this he was thinking specially of men possessed of some particular skill required for war work or for the maintenance of some essential industry. These men ought to have no difficulty in finding a job within a fortnight, in which case they could apply for a fresh certificate. But the great importance of the matter is this, that there are very large numbers of men who have, so to speak, taken refuge in those occupations which have been pronounced to be of national importance. I notice that in a speech delivered in the House of Commons Mr. Stephen Walsh said— In the area for which I speak and for which I act as miners' agent, in my own county, at least 3,000 men between the ages of 18 and 41, who never worked in mines before, have gone into the mines for the purpose of escaping their obligation of military service. He went on to say that he thought the numbers would be found to be equally large or even larger in other mining areas.

I do not suppose that the advocates of organised labour in the least desire that these men, if they have no special skill for the work they are doing, should continue to be so employed, nor would they desire that if they are combed out an unnecessary amount of time should be lost, when time is of such supreme importance, before they could be brought into military training. Indeed, I cannot see that there is any necessity for giving more than a fortnight to anybody, were it not for Section 7 of the Munitions Act. That does seem to me to cause a difficulty, because under that section, if I read it aright, a man who has been employed in a controlled establishment may be dismissed by his employer, and, being so dismissed, except he is successful in an appeal to the Munitions Tribunal, he is for six weeks unable to get any other employment; nobody else can engage him. In that case if he had only a fortnight's grace it is true that the man affected by Section 7 of the Munitions Act might find himself in a position of hardship; and it seems to me that the reason for giving two months in his case is to put him in exactly the same position as a man who is not working under the Munitions Act but who is engaged in an occupation of national importance.

The idea which I had in mind in putting down my Amendment was that I would put all these people in the same category. They would have an effective fortnight only. The man engaged on work of national importance but not coming under the Munitions Act would have his fortnight, as the Government originally proposed when they introduced their Bill into the House of Commons. The man affected by Section 7 of the Munitions Act would have literally two months, but inasmuch as he is blocked for six weeks from seeking other employment he has only an effective fortnight. The idea of my Amendment—I do not say it is perfect; as I said before, I am not enamoured of it—was to put them all on a footing of substantial equality. Everything depends, of course, on the view which the Government take of these Amendments. I am convinced that something must be done. If the Government, with their far greater knowledge of the intricacies of the question, are satisfied that the noble Lord's Amendment as a matter of practice is going to give them more men, and give them quicker, than my proposal, then I will let my proposal go. But unless they are prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment I must press my own, rather than let the clause go as it stands. The Government's original proposal, although perhaps not perfect, was better than the clause as it now stands. I am sure that, by an accident, the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons went a great deal further than was necessary to secure the object which the Labour Party had in view; and I am sure also that the Bill as it now stands contains a very grave defect which in the highest interest of the country it is necessary to remedy.

As I say, I could criticise a certain portion of the noble Lord's Amendment. I could criticise the date, because it seems to me that it does not at all follow that all the men who have taken refuge in these employments have done so since August 15 last. Perhaps the majority of them have, but I think it very doubtful indeed whether the 3,000 men now employed in mines in Lancashire who never worked in a mine before the war all entered the mines since August 15 last. I think it would be very much better to adopt the beginning of the war as the date, if the noble Lord's Amendment is to be accepted. I could criticise my own Amendment also. As I say, I do not wish especially to press it. I am prepared to give it up if the Government will take the noble Lord's Amendment and tell us that that is the one from which they can get the most practical benefit in the interests of speedy recruitment for the Army.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should like to impress upon the Government the great importance of modifying this clause. They do not realise, I think, what a tremendous hole this clause makes in the Bill. In the first place, let me point out its palpable injustice. You are going to give two months grace to a very large class of men—to all who are combed out of munitions, and to all whose services come to an end in the certified occupations. But you are not going to give the married man two months grace. The married man under this Bill—who is very much to be pitied, although it is quite right that he should be made to serve—is only going to have one month. Yet the shirkers who are to be brought in, and whose certificates are brought to an end in the qualified employments and in munitions, are all to have two months. How can you defend that before the married men of the country? It is an absolutely indefensible, proposal. I am sorry that you have extended the period to two months, because this means that the Army is deprived of these men for that long period. That is the first point.

Let me take the other point. Look at the words at the end of your clause. You substitute the words "unless in the meantime the man has made an application for a renewal of his certificate" for the words "unless in the meantime the man has obtained a renewal of his certificate." Do you know what that means? It means that you are not giving this man two months but four months. I wonder whether the Government have realised that. I have at random taken out of papers under my charge as a member of the Central Tribunal three cases, and I find that from the time the original application is made to the time of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal may be taken as very often two months—one case was five weeks, and the other two eight weeks; and they were three cases that I took quite at random. I expect it will be the same in other cases. At the end of the two months grace you are giving, the man makes an application. That is turned down, let us say, by the Local Tribunal. He appeals, and he is turned down by the Appeal Tribunal. That will be two months more. Therefore he will have four months altogether before he is made to serve. And this at a time when you want to get men quickly for the Army!

I do not suppose that the House of Commons—it was late at night—had the least idea what they were doing when they accepted the Amendment to this clause. This applies to an enormous class. It is not a trivial matter. It applies to the textile industry, to the metal industry, to the agricultural industry, and to the food industry. In the lightness of their heart—I suppose between 12 and 4 o'clock in the morning—the Government accepted an Amendment like this one in the House of Commons; and now we are asked to put it right. That is the way in which legislation in time of war is carried out. I earnestly hope that the Government will not ask us to agree to this Bill finally tonight. I hope they will let the next stage be taken to-morrow, and I venture to hope that between now and to-morrow the Government will consider this clause and see what they ought to do. I believe I have rightly read the terms of the clause, and I say it is a fatal clause to the Bill and ought to be radically altered. I am in favour of Lord Reay's Amendment. It is a certain though a very small mitigation.

LORD RATHCREEDAN

May I draw attention to one matter in connection with this clause? As it at present stands, it will clash with decisions given under the principal Act. Under the principal Act, when a man got one month he also got two months in addition. If the words "cease to be in force" are struck out and the words "are granted" added, then he will be in a position where he will not be required to attend before the Tribunal again. As it stands all these decisions will have to be reopened, and the man in order to get what he was entitled to and what the Tribunal intended to give him will have to go before the Tribunal again.

THE EARL OF DERBY

This is far the most difficult and most contentious clause, to my mind, in the whole of the Bill, and requires more careful consideration than any other clause. It is known as the Industrial Compulsion Clause, though I infinitely prefer the epithet "victimisation" used by Lord Milner. It is obvious that we must have some clause that will prevent men from being victimised. At the same time we want to prevent the clause going to such an extent as to cover men whom all of us in both Houses, with very few exceptions perhaps, wish to see serving with the Colours.

At the present moment there are two things that to my mind militate most against our getting a rapid flow of recruits. I should have liked to have seen brought before your Lordships a proposal that all men, whether under the Munitions Department or in any other certified occupation, should be brought before the Tribunals for the Tribunals to decide whether or not they should be taken for military service. There is nothing that makes people so angry as the knowledge that one man—even if it is only one man in their midst whom they know to be a shirker has got into such employment, and this has given rise to more discontent on the subject of compulsory service than anything else. I put down an Amendment and withdrew it for the simple reason that I found it went further than I intended, not perhaps further than I should have liked, but it had practically no chance of receiving acceptance from the Government or indeed from other portions of your Lordships' House or the House of Commons. I withdrew it because I did not want to interfere with other arrangements which were likely to be made in that connection, and also in connection with the clause now under discussion. I am glad to say that the Minister of Munitions and the First Lord of the Admiralty, the two people most concerned, have to-day agreed that there shall be a small Committee of three, one representing the War Office, and that this Committee shall have before it all flagrant cases of what I will call shirkers, and if the Committee decides that they are flagrant cases the men will then be brought before the Tribunals. That is a step which at all events will do away with a certain amount of the heartburning that exists with regard to these cases.

Now comes the second point—the special safeguards that are given to men in munition works and certified occupations when they leave such employment. I confess that personally I prefer Lord Reay's Amendment to that of my noble friend Lord Milner, and for this reason. I think Lord Reay's Amendment would give us more men, and at the same time hit harder at the shirker than perhaps Lord Milner's would. The date of August 15 is mentioned. That is the registration day, and it is supposed to have been the day on which men first saw that there was some chance of compulsory service and then escaped into the various industries from which they thought they would be least liable to be disturbed. I quite agree with Lord Milner that this date does not cover all, or nearly all, the cases. At the same time, taking it all round, a man who went into an industry prior to August 15 may not have gone in for the purpose of shielding himself, and probably by this time he has arrived at a state of skill that would make it very difficult to replace him.

Replacement is very much bound up with this clause—the replacement by which I hope to see the older married men go into munition works and liberate the single men for service with the Colours. If you are going to have this two months' exemption with the eight weeks which Lord Salisbury has rightly shown to your Lordships may be added to the two months, substitution of labour of that kind is an impossibility. This clause, unless it is amended, even in the modified degree proposed by Lord Reay, is going to stand between this country and the getting of the men whom it requires to a degree that I do not think even His Majesty's Government can conceive at the present moment. I therefore sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The noble Viscount below the Gangway (Lord Milner) gave your Lordships a sketch of the Parliamentary history of this question, and it is very important that this Parliamentary history should not be forgotten. Let me remind your Lordships of one or two facts connected with it. These certificates of exemption can be of many kinds, and they can be issued by more than one authority; they can be granted by the Tribunals or by a Government Department in consultation with the Army Council. The certificate itself may be absolute, or conditional, or temporary. At one end you have the certificate granted to a man who normally ought to go with the shortest delay possible into the Army and who in no circumstances is likely to be retained by industry. I am told that a certificate granted in these conditions is known, in the jargon of the subject, as a "good-bye" certificate; it is given to the man so that he may have a little time to arrange his affairs before going into the Army. You have that kind of certificate at one end of the scale. At the other end you have a certificate given to a man who is, let us say, a highly trained and a highly valued artificer, and who is more able to serve his country usefully in industry than he would be if he joined the Army.

The principal Act, as introduced, was so drawn that in all cases, in whatever circumstances the certificate was granted, it lapsed from the moment when the conditions under which it had been given as to employment came to an end; so that the man with the "good-bye" certificate and the skilled artificer were put in exactly the same position. This created a serious apprehension in the minds of the representatives of Labour and I think a not unnatural apprehension. There was a feeling that men might be, as the noble Viscount put it, victimised by their employers; that a man against whom his employer had a grudge might be got rid of and find himself in the Army before he knew where he was. That feeling ought to be met. It was, perhaps, exaggerated, but it was a perfectly genuine feeling; and the result was that there was inserted into the Act the provision entitling everybody to a period of two months' grace. Experience showed that the results of this arrangement were very inconvenient; it did not discriminate sufficiently between case and case. In some cases the two months was much too long; in others it was obviously by no means excessive. The two months would be unnecessary in the case of the man given a "good-bye" certificate; it would, not be too long in the case of the skilled artificer. But the great objection to the arrangement was that it afforded an opening to the man who wanted to shirk altogether. That man, if he was sufficiently astute, was able to take advantage not only of the two months but of the right given him to apply for exemption, and in that way his two months became a much longer period. It also interfered very much with the operation of "combing," to which my noble friend opposite attaches so much importance.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

The "combing" is producing great results; but obviously if you cannot pull a man who ought not to be in the Munitions Department, say, out of that Department without a delay which may extend over more than two months, your "combing" operations are very much hampered. With these facts before us we brought in this Hill, under which it was proposed to reduce the period all round from two months to two weeks. When the Bill was on its way through the House of Commons a strong plea was put in on behalf of the skilled men employed on work of national importance or in munitions and of course it could not be denied that their position was in some respects different from that of ordinary workmen. Accordingly words were inserted in the Bill restoring the two months in the case of this particular class of man. That is how the restoration of the two months came about. Now the noble Viscount says—I think with some reason—that in restoring the two months to the whole of this large class of men we have gone too far. And that. I think, is the view of the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

That brings me to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Reay. Lord Reay suggests that only those men should be allowed to have the two months who have been, not only engaged in work of national importance or in munitions, but who were so engaged before the month of August, 1915. We are under the impression, so far as we are able to ascertain, that the introduction of these words will deny the advantage of the longer period to the larger portion of the men who have taken refuge in munitions or in works of other kind merely for the purpose of evading the obligation to serve. It seems to us upon the whole a fair way of meeting the kind of objection which has been taken to the clause, and therefore we are ready to accept my noble friend Lord Reay's Amendment. I think that the more far-reaching Amendment placed on the Paper by the noble Viscount (Lord Milner) would carry us too far, and it would probably occasion serious complications which might considerably affect the prospects of the Bill passing soon into law. That is then our decision. We accept my noble friend Lord Reay's Amendment. And I may say, in reply to my noble friend opposite (Lord Salisbury), that we are quite ready to accept his suggestion and to take the remaining stages of the Bill—I hope all the remaining stages—to-morrow.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I hope it has not appeared in any way that we are attempting to bring the skilled men under the fortnight, because I think we all agree that the skilled men are the men to whom we ought to give the full exemption of two months.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that Lord Milner does not intend to move his Amendment.

VISCOUNT MILNER

No.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then I will put Lord Rear's Amendment as moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out ("or") and insert ("and who were engaged in such an occupation before the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen, and in the case of men").—(Lord Reay.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDHURST

My Amendment to this Clause is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("1915") insert ("as amended by any subsequent enactment").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("1915") insert ("and who were in the same employment or engaged in the same or similar occupation before the fifteenth day of August nineteen hundred and fifteen").—(Lord Reay.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I really think that this clause requires further treatment The points which I ventured to detail to your Lordships just now do not appear to me to have been answered, and I hope that between now and to-morrow the Government will consider what can be done with the clause.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

LORD SANDHURST

The new clause that I propose to insert after Clause 6 is for the provision of doctors. It is purely for administrative and organising convenience, to facilitate getting the necessary number of doctors and also to provide for the general civilian public. All eases are considered as part of the whole and with a full knowledge of the needs of the community.

Amendment moved—

Insert as a new clause:

" Provisions as to exemption of medical Practitioners.

" Regulations made under the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall provide for the establishment of professional committees to deal with claims for exemption made by duly qualified medical practitioners; and any application made by such a medical practitioner on any ground, other than that of conscientious objection, for a certificate of exemption shall be referred by the tribunal to whom it is made to such a committee in accordance with those regulations; and the recommendation of the committee on the application shall be binding on any tribunal constituted under the principal Act."—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Proof of offences in connexion with deserters and absentees.

8. During the continuance of the present war section one hundred and fifty-three of the Army Act and section seventeen of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882 (which relate to offences in connexion with deserters and absentees), shall have effect as though the following provision were inserted at the end of each of those sections:— For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have knowledge unless he proves that he had not knowledge.

LORD SANDHURST

The Amendment is necessary because in Scotland some doubts have been thrown upon the propriety of the procedure, and it might be necessary to take men to the Sheriffs' Courts, which would be an extremely inconvenient proceeding.

Amendment moved— Page 4, after line 9, insert ("and it is hereby declared that, in the application of any provisions of either of those Acts to men who are deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the reserve in pursuance of the principal Act or this Act, the expression ' court of summary jurisdiction ' as respects Scotland includes any magistrate or magistrates, by whatever name called, officiating under the provisions of any general or local Police Act").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Amendment of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915.

12. The first proviso to section one of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915 (which provides for the maintenance of the; rate of pay of a soldier transferred to a corps not of the same arm or branch of the service as the corps in which he was serving), shall not have effect in cases in which the Army Council direct that that proviso shall not apply.

LORD HAVERSHAM

By this clause, which I propose to delete, it is absolutely within the power of the Army Council to reduce the pay of a man who is transferred from one corps to another. We all agreed that it was a very good thing that the Army Council should have the power of transferring men from one arm of the Service to another, say from the Cavalry to the Infantry, of moving the men about as they pleased. But this clause is an amendment of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915, wherein the Army Council themselves declared that they would not alter the pay of a man in any way if he were so transferred. I will read to your Lordships the exact proviso— Provided that where a soldier is under this section transferred without his consent to a corps of an arm or branch of the service other than that in which ho is serving, he shall not by reason of such transfer be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he was in receipt at the date of transfer should such pay and allowances be more advantageous to him than the pay and allowances of his rank in the corps to which ho is transferred. That provision is going to be put an end to, for Clause 12 says that this proviso which I have read to your Lordships shall not have effect in cases in which the Army Council direct that it shall not apply. I say that this is a distinct breach of the man's contract. It will be very unpopular in the Army if there is any tampering with the pay of the soldier. This Bill will be read in every non-commissioned officers' mess in the Army; every private soldier affected by the transfer will know that his pay is to be altered at the will of the Army Council and that he is not secured by the Act passed last year. I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider this point, because I am certain that nothing will be so unpopular as altering the pay of the men so transferred. As I have said, every one agrees that it is a good thing that there should be this power of transferring men. But when you come to touch a man's pay, it is the one thing he does care about; and I cannot see why the Army Council inserted into the Bill a clause which absolutely does away with all the benefit of their own Army (Transfers) Act of last year.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 12.—(Lord Haversham.)

LORD SANDHURST

I am sorry to say, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that this Amendment cannot be accepted. Supposing you had a man enlisted on special business, and it turned out either that he did not know it or would not learn it; he would be put out of that special business and ordered to join some other regiment. It would seem hardly sound, if he had been drawing the higher rate of pay, that he should be put into another regiment and receive higher pay than his new comrades, especially if the reason for his being "turned down," as it were, and put into another regiment was incompetence. And I am to add that from a disciplinary point of view the Secretary of State attaches considerable importance to keeping the clause as it is in the Bill.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I strongly oppose the Amendment to leave out this clause. It seems to me that nothing could be more unpopular than not to have such a clause in this Bill. Does the noble Lord realise what the real unfairness in the pay of the Army is? It is this. I have heard it stated in France that the further you get from the firing line the higher the pay, and there is not the least doubt that the man in the trenches is getting less pay than those men who are in comparative safety at the rear of the lines. The men in those corps behind the lines do gallant and great work, but they do not face the same dangers as the men in the trenches; and there are many men in those corps who ought to be in the Infantry of the Line to be in their proper place. You are going to transfer those men, and rightly so. Are you going to transfer them and then say to A, "You have been at the base depôt of the Army Service Corps for nineteen months; you have never heard a shot fired, but you are getting higher pay than the men in the trenches; we will now put you in the trenches alongside the men who have been fighting there for nineteen months, and we will give you higher pay than we are giving to those men"? Do you think that is justice? There is no doubt that it would be most bitterly resented.

Then there are the men to whom the noble Lord referred. Let us take, for instance, the men who went out as motor transport drivers; they were very highly paid, and I am told that in some cases they were absolutely incompetent as motor drivers. If those men are fit to go into the ranks they should go into the ranks. But would you therefore continue them at the high rate of pay of a service for which they were found to be incompetent? That is what the noble Lord's Amendment would do. I trust that the head authorities of the Army will be as careful as they possibly can be in making these transfers from a higher paid to a less well paid corps, but I sincerely hope that they will do what they can to put the single men now in these higher paid corps into the firing line and put married men who have responsibilities in what are, perhaps, safer and certainly more highly paid corps.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I hope that the noble Lord behind me will not press his Amendment. I will only refer to one argument that he used. He said that it was a very good thing that the Army Council should have this power of transferring men, but if he presses his Amendment he really makes it impossible for the Army Council to exercise that power. He ties them to the condition that if they transfer a man they must put him in receipt of pay more than he is worth and more than his comrades are getting. That is a fatal handicap to the power of transfer. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not saddle the exercise of that right with conditions which will make it impossible to use it.

LORD HAVERSHAM

If the noble Earl, whose opinion we value so much in this House, is right in his statement, as no doubt he is, this proviso to the Army (Transfers) Act of last year ought never to have been passed, because it Confirms the man in the belief that he would never have his pay reduced if he were transferred to another corps. I agree with what fell from the noble Earl, that there were men brought in to drive motor transports at 7s. a day. That was very extravagant pay to give, and we were all glad to know that no more men were to be recruited at that figure. I have no idea of pressing my Amendment.

THE EARL OF DERBY

The difference between this clause and the provision in the Act of last year is that last year we were under a voluntary system, and now we are under a compulsory system.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule:

Session and Chapter.	Short Title.	Extent of Repeal
5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 104.	The Military Service Act, 1916.	Subsection (4) of section one; the words "before the appointed date" in subsection (5) of section two; and the words "and, subject to any provision which may hereafter be made by Parliament, men who have been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown on the termination of their period of service" in paragraph five of the First Schedule.

LORD SANDHURST

The addition to the Schedule which I propose is consequential upon the new subsection to Clause 4 to which your Lordships agreed earlier this evening.

Amendment moved:— Page 6, line 29, at end insert ("the word ' local ' wherever it occurs before the word ' tribunals ' in paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule").—(Lord Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No 38.)

House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.