§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I rise to put a question to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne with reference to what passed in your Lordships' House yesterday. I then ventured to ask him whether he was able to add anything to a declaration which had been made in another place by the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the relief of men who are at the head of businesses. I pointed out that this was a very vague statement on the part of my right hon. friend in another place, that I was afraid it would have formidable consequences if it were left as it stood, and that I knew of my own knowledge that it had been misunderstood in several quarters already. Everybody must have sympathy with these business men in the circumstances, and if any method can be found by means of legislation to mitigate the position in which they may be placed by being forced to serve, I am sure your 88 Lordships' House and Parliament would be ready to consider it favourably. But that is quite a different thing from relieving them from serving altogether. It is because I know that the statement by Mr. Walter Long has been misunderstood that I venture to ask my noble friend at this stage whether he can add anything to what he said on this subject the other night.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I have made inquiries into the circumstances under which the pledge to which my noble friend refers was given to the House of Commons by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. During the course of the discussion of the Bill great stress was laid upon the hardship that might in certain cases be occasioned to men in sole responsibility for and dependent upon businesses who were liable to find themselves called to serve in the Army, and my right hon. friend undertook to deal with this matter by Regulation. My noble friend opposite knows that under the principal Act Regulations with reference to the functions and procedure of the Tribunals can be issued by the Local Government Board, and that such Regulations may contain instructions to the Tribunals given with the special object of securing unanimity of practice. It is under that clause of the Schedule that the Local Government Board propose to proceed.
The Regulation which will be issued must be read by the light of the second section of the principal. Act, in which my noble friend will find a provision to the effect that exemptions may be given 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 his domestic position. Of course, I cannot give my noble friend the exact text of the Regulation which will be issued, because that is still under consideration; but its general effect will be something of this kind—that if it could be proved, of course to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, that serious hardship would arise because the man was the sole proprietor of the business, his family being dependent on the business for support, and if it could be shown that it was impossible to make other arrangements for carrying on the business in his absence, the case should be treated as coming within the scope of the section of the principal Act which I read 89 just now dealing with cases of special hardship. The instructions will, of course, be carefully worded; and if my noble friend followed what I said just now he will have noticed that it will be a sine qua non that the Tribunal shall be completely satisfied that all the conditions are fulfilled. I do not think he need have any apprehension that there will be anything approaching an indiscriminate release of the whole of this class of men.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not know whether, by permission of the House, your Lordships will allow me to say a few further words. Although I quite followed what my noble friend said, yet the scope of his words is still very wide. I would beg him to remember that the word "business" does not mean only a great business, but means every little shop. If it is intended that the head of every shop, if he cannot get his business carried on otherwise, is to be relieved, then the Government have made yet another big hole in their Bill. I hope that is not meant. I trust that when the President of the Local Government Board comes to draft the words they will be very restricted; otherwise I venture to think that the Government have not realised the full extent of what may happen.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI think the point is that it will be necessary to satisfy the Tribunals that there really is a case for relief, and I should hope that we might trust the Tribunals to interpret the instructions in a reasonable spirit.
LORD HARRISCould the noble Marquess say whether this Regulation will be made retrospective, whether it will apply to cases that have already been passed by the Tribunals? I understand that the Regulation is intended to be a fresh instruction to the Tribunals as regards the class of case described by the noble Marquess. I know that it is the fact that cases have been already dealt with which certainly come under the description given by tie noble Marquess.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYA lot of them.
LORD HARRISThe Tribunals had to settle the point one way or another under the Act as it was, without the new instruction. It is very possible that cases 90 of hardship have been dealt with, but they were dealt with without the advice that is going to be given by the Government. Therefore the Tribunals may have sent men into the Army who, if their cases had come forward subsequently to the passing of this Act, might have been dealt with differently in consequence of the instruction which is now going to be issued.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy noble friend said that a number of these cases had already been tried and decided by the Tribunals "one way or another." The object of this Regulation is to prevent their deciding them in one way or another, and to ensure something like uniformity of administration between one Tribunal and another. But the reason why something like a new departure in this respect is necessary now is that as the unattested married men are to be brought within the scope of the Act the number of cases in which the man will prove to be responsible for and dependent upon his business is likely to be considerably increased. I do not know that I can answer off-hand the question whether this new Regulation will have a retrospective effect. I am not quite sure how that stands.
§ LORD HAVERSHAMThe general instructions which we have received from the Local Government Board are that if a man is indispensable to his business he is not to be taken.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNot indispensable in the case of all businesses, but indispensable to businesses which are of national importance. That makes all the difference.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy noble friend mentioned the word "indispensable," and I used it the other evening. Had I been careful I should have avoided the use of the word "indispensable," because it has a technical meaning. In regard to the new instructions the real test, will be the test of hardship.
§ LORD HAVERSHAMIt is the same in agriculture. We are told not to take a man if the farm would be left derelict thereby.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYHear, hear.
§ LORD HAVERSHAMMy Tribunal has always acted on the basis that if a man's business would be broken up he should not be taken. I will take a concrete case. Supposing that in a county town there is a good saddler. That man probably has a branch established in another village. We do not consider the branch establishment as being important to the inhabitants of the village, because they can go to the larger shop in the county town, so we make no allowance for the branch establishment. I think the whole thing turns on the general rules laid down by the Local Government Board. I am sure the noble Marquess opposite will agree that it is impossible to judge without knowing the local circumstances. These are judged best by the Tribunals themselves, acting under instructions from the Local Government Board, and they endeavour to judge the cases in the best possible way. My belief is that they have acted with entire impartiality—at least those I know have—with a desire not to distress a man and not to break up the business he has built up, and where he is indispensable he is not taken for military service. I do not think you can lay down any distinct rules unless you know the local circumstances.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, there is an Amendment standing in my name which I do not think requires many observations. It is on Clause 4, and I will explain to your Lordships the exact meaning of it. Some of us made an appeal to the Government, in cases where a further appeal had been unreasonably refused by the Intermediate Court to the Central Tribunal, that some remedy should be provided. Many cases are known to us where an appeal has been unreasonably refused. My noble friend opposite said that the President of the Local Government Board proposed to deal with the matter in the following way. He proposed to consider in his own office the circumstances of any cases submitted to him; to send them, if he thought necessary, back to the Appeal Tribunal asking if they had any observations to make; and, if he was not satisfied with that explanation, to ask them to retry the case. But upon investigation it appears that there is no provision in the 92 principal Act under which a case could be re-tried, and therefore I have ventured to put down a subsection enabling regulations to be made directing a re-trial.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Clause 4, page 3, after subsection (4) insert as a new subsection:
(5) Regulations made under the second schedule of the principal Act may provide for permitting the rehearing of a case by a tribunal in cases specified by the Regulations."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
§ VISCOUNT BRYCEMy Lords, I may perhaps take this opportunity of asking the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) whether he can add to the statement which he made bearing upon this topic on Thursday last. He then said—
The President of the Local Government Board is prepared to go even further, and, if it seems necessary, to call for the production of the evidence so that it may be 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 case.And the noble Marquess added that the President would act in these cases where there was a representation made by a "substantial authority."I invited the noble Marquess at the time, as did my noble friend Lord Courtney, to explain what would be considered a "substantial authority," but he was not able then to give any further explanation. I think I may therefore venture to ask him whether he is now in a position to enlighten us a little further on the subject. The matter is one of considerable interest, and this will afford a safety valve through which some of the complaints which have hitherto been made may relieve themselves. I need hardly say—it is, of course, obvious to us all—that if anything can be done to relieve the sense of irritation which seems to exist in some quarters it will be well done. It has been often said, and said with truth, that it is important not only that justice should be done by the law, but that everybody should recognise that justice has been done. Anything on the lines indicated by the Government that will give an opportunity for remedying any case of hardship which has slipped through the Tribunals, or any case where an appeal has not been granted that ought to have been granted, will, I am sure, have a beneficial effect.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt is quite true that I stated the other day that the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to examine cases in which it was represented to him—I used the expression "for substantial reasons urged by a substantial authority"—that the decision of the Appeal Court had been a mistaken decision. My noble friend asks me whether I am able to define what I meant by "substantial authority." I cited two examples of what seemed to me to be illustrations of the interpretation that might be put upon the words. In one case I mentioned a representation coming from a local authority. Last night I mentioned the possibility of a representation proceeding from the head of one of the Departments of the Government. I cited my noble friend Lord Selborne, who takes a great interest in the case of the agricultural employees. My noble friend asks me to go further, and produce something like a catalogue raisonné of substantial authorities.
§ VISCOUNT BRYCEI did not mean that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEThat, I venture to say, would be perfectly impossible. I go further. I think, from the point of view of my noble friend and those who think with him, that it would be a great mistake to define too precisely what is meant by a "substantial authority." The effect of such a definition would be to rule out all representations unless they proceeded from some one who came within the list of substantial authorities. I am sure I do not misrepresent my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board when I say that he would not lightly brush aside any representation coming from no matter what source if it seemed to him to be serious and in all respects entitled to consideration. It might come from an individual; it might come from a body. But I am quite sure that in the interests of the people whom my noble friend desires to protect it would not be wise to fetter the discretion of the Local Government Board too narrowly by attempting to define exactly the kind of authorities from whom such a representation would be received.
§ VISCOUNT BRYCEThe noble Marquess has answered my question in the amplest way, and complete satisfaction ought to be given by what he has said. I was far from desiring that a list should be made 94 out, because that would be open to the obvious difficulty that it would exclude cases that were not mentioned. What the noble Marquess has indicated is quite satisfactory.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I quite recognise that, Mr. Walter Long (who was in charge of this Bill in another place) having given this pledge, it is necessary to redeem it, and that to redeem it this particular Amendment is necessary. But I confess I view it with the greatest possible regret. It means two things. It means, in the first place, even more delay in securing men for service with the Colours. Secondly, it means the interference by local authorities in individual cases with a view of getting those cases re-heard, and the result will be even greater congestion of the Local Tribunals than there is at the present moment. I presume that we have to pass this Amendment because of the pledge of the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I must again express my sincere regret that it is thought necessary to make it.
VISCOUNT GALWAYMy Lords, I also want to protest against any attempt to interfere with the Local Tribunals or with the Appeal Tribunals by a Government Office in London. Those of us who have been entrusted with the duty of serving on these Tribunals have done so from a stern sense of duty; but it has been clearly understood up to now that all we should get from the Local Government Board or any other authority in London were recommendations as to what we should do. In no way whatever were they to interfere with our free judgment—a judgment which I think we are entitled to give, because the Local and Appeal Tribunals have local knowledge. I enter a strong protest against interference by Government Departments. The Local Government Board on one occasion admitted that they had no right to interfere with our decisions, and that our judgment could only be altered by a Court of Law, to which, of course, anybody has an appeal. This Amendment will not only lead to great delay, as Lord Derby has said, but it will also lead to great dissatisfaction amongst the Tribunals themselves. A great many of them will feel so humiliated that their decisions should be referred to various clerks in Government Departments in London that this will affect the position of all the Tribunals in the country.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe Amendment does not propose that the Local Government Board shall reverse a decision of an Appeal Tribunal. The utmost it suggests is that the Appeal Tribunal shall be asked to reconsider their decision, and if they like again to come to the same decision they can do so. I agree that it would not be a suitable arrangement that the Local Government Board should sit as, in effect, a Court of Law over the Tribunals. All they have to do is to say, having regard to all the facts of the case, whether they think the Tribunal should reconsider their decision.
LORD SANDHURSTIn saying that the Government accept the Amendment, I might point out that no doubt in very many cases the Tribunal will be able to satisfy the Local Government Board that their decision was right, and that the facts had been wrongly put forward; and it would not be anticipated that there would be a general re-hearing of cases which had been to the Tribunals.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURSTI move a drafting Amendment in Clause 10, to leave out the words "with or without hard labour." These words are unnecessary owing to the general provision in Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which enables a Court to inflict imprisonment with or without hard labour in all cases where imprisonment can be inflicted. The subsection in which the words proposed to be left out occur was inserted in an Amendment in another place. The Amendment would not be worth making except for the fact that the words do not occur in subsection (1), which represents the original clause; and if the Amendment is not made, it is thought that some inferential argument might hereafter be drawn from the discrepancy in the language of the two subsections.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 5, line 22, leave out, ("with or without hard labour").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD SYDENHAMMy Lords, may I ask a question about the operation of Clause 12, which has given rise to doubts in some quarters. That clause gives very large powers of transferring men to the 96 Reserve; but there have been withdrawn from the Colours not far short of 40,000 men under the "direct application" or the "bulk release" scheme. Those men remain under military control, but they have certain special privileges. They are entitled to draw the district rate of wages or their military pay, whichever is greatest, and their wives are entitled to separation allowances. If those men were transferred to the Reserve they would lose those privileges, and probably cherish a grievance. Further than that, the military authorities might lose sight of them and the Munitions Department would lose them. I understand that there has been a certain amount of anxiety in the Munitions Department as to whether these powers could be exercised in the case of these men. Therefore I ask the noble Lord whether he can say what will be done in this case.
LORD SANDHURSTThe Secretary of State for War desires me to say that the matter is under consideration.
§ Moved (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER)My Lords, on this the final stage of the Bill it may be appropriate for me to say that its smooth and rapid passage through your Lordships' House will prove most beneficial to the Army. As soon as the measure has received the Royal Assent we shall be able to regulate the flow of recruits to the Colours, and get rid altogether of those sudden fluctuations in recruiting which were so prejudicial alike to military and industrial interests. Further—and I emphasise the point—the process of recruiting will now be carried out with the minimum possible inconvenience to the men themselves.
The idea has apparently been prevalent in certain quarters that for some wholly inexplicable motive the military authorities are prone to crowd and even to congest the ranks with men physically unfit to bear arms. No suggestion could be wider of the truth. Under the provisions of this Bill we can call up men for medical re-examination; but this power will be used not to absorb the physically unfit, but to secure the physically efficient. Some of these men are undoubtedly sheltering themselves behind certificates acquired in an 97 unsatisfactory way or under a temporary condition of ill-health. The terms of this Bill will enable us to make use of the men who were discarded on account of physical disability for active service but who are suitable for home service, clerical work, and the like. In a word, the Bill, in purport and in effect, makes directly and unmistakably for equality of sacrifice in the national cause. The Army Council will, for their part, use every endeavour to render it as easy as possible for the men to be called up. We shall keep the groups open for voluntary attestation until the appointed date.
There is no doubt that the Armies in the field will welcome this measure with intense satisfaction. Generals and Staffs will be able to count with moral certainty on their receiving the necessary drafts and reinforcements, and the rank and file will be encouraged by the thought that all their countrymen at home are prepared to support them to the utmost of their power. Our Allies also will, I believe, recognise in our acceptance of obligations which are undoubtedly such a marked departure from our national traditions that this country is prepared to throw into the scale without reserve the whole of our resources against the common foe. The conviction deeply and universally felt that we have engaged in a just war and the patriotism of our people gave us, under the voluntary system, a far larger Army than we could ever have contemplated. This Bill will enable us to maintain its numbers in a manner and to a degree not hitherto possible, and thus take our fair and full share in the great conflict on the issue of which our position as a nation and the future of our race depend.
LORD WEARDALEMy Lords, before the Third Reading of this Bill is actually put to the House I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that my views with regard to the principle of this measure remain unchanged. But I quite recognise, the first Bill for compulsory military service having been passed in the month of January last, that the principle having been once conceded there was no possible means of arresting its progress to the full fulfilment which we see to-day. I confess that I received very little comfort from the assurances that were then received from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government with regard to the 98 earlier Bill not being the thin end of the wedge. Unfortunately I have had some experience, and I understand the inner meaning of the phrase "Wait and see." Therefore I was under no illusion as to what was likely to follow after the first Bill became law.
I willingly recognise that during the progress of this Bill though your Lordships' House the members of the Government, more particularly the noble and gallant Field-Marshal the Secretary of State for War, have given assurances which will be extremely satisfactory to those who regard this measure with great repugnance. The conscientious objectors do not constitute a very numerous class and they do not enjoy the sympathy of a large body of people, but there are conscientious objectors who are worthy of all sympathy because they are truly and genuinely conscientious objectors. Those people, according to what has been stated by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, are about to be, in the cases where it is satisfactorily proved to the Courts-Martial that they really come under the category of conscientious objectors, delivered over to the civil authority for treatment. That seems to me a very satisfactory concession, and I welcome it on behalf of those who are opposed to the principle of this measure. I also believe that much will be done to ease matters by the instructions which I understand are about to be issued by the Local Government Board. The Local Tribunals are to be instructed as to what is to be done in those distinct cases of hardship where poor struggling men who have created a small business by their own exertions are taken away from it and their businesses very often shut up as a consequence. Nobody can deny that this is a serious evil which we ought to try to meet.
I desired to make these few observations in order to express the view which I still entertain that this is an unnecessary Bill. I take what I believe to be the valued authority of the Military Correspondent of The Times, Colonel Repington, who says that under the first Military Service Act only 187,000 men have been called to the Colours. That was not largely in excess of the number that I ventured to speculate would be added by any process of compulsion. Had the country known what we know now—namely, that 5,000,000 men had come to the Colours under the 99 call of patriotism alone, and that the requirements of the War Council were only for 200,000 more men and for a gradual enlistment every month—I believe that the patriotism of the country would have been equal to the occasion, and that we might have maintained the voluntary principle, so precious to many of us, and obtained all the recruits we required for the service of the country. It would have been a fine thing for this country to look back upon. It was said that it was necessary to make this concession in order to satisfy opinion abroad. Opinion abroad was entirely mistaken. If they had known abroad what we know now, if they had been aware of the enormous numbers who had come to the Colours, public opinion abroad would have taken a very different view.
I regret one Amendment which has been consented to by the House in the present measure. The Amendment to Clause 6 will, I fear, raise apprehension in the industrial world that industrial compulsion is in a sense involved in the passage of this measure. I do not believe that the Labour representatives in the House of Commons will for a moment accept that Amendment, and I regret, as I say, that it has been accepted by the Government and by this House. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make what I know is a belated, and perhaps solitary, protest in favour of the voluntary principle, to which I am firmly attached; and I believe that history will show that it might have been preserved.
LORD HARRISMy Lords, the speech of the Secretary of State gives me an opportunity of making an appeal to him on a point on which I have already spoken to him privately. I hope he will do everything he can not to lose touch with the county connection. The Territorial Army unquestionably is based upon it. The county regiments revere it, but I am sorry to say that under the present system of the allotment of recruits it is being lost. I told the noble and gallant Earl the other day that I apprehended that considerable numbers of recruits from our county were being sent, not to their own county battalions, but to others. I am going to send him in a day or two some returns which he has allowed me to ask for from the depots in Kent which will show that as many as 800 to 1,000 recruits are being 100 sent out of the county to other county battalions, whilst about the same number are being brought into the county from elsewhere. I cannot see the advantage of that. You are losing touch with one of the most valuable traditions that has animated the Army during the South African War and during this war, and I hope, if it is possible to make the change now, it will be done before it is too late.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, may I be allowed to endorse what the noble Lord has said, and to beg that as far as possible the county connection between men and their regiments should be kept up. I have seen in the last fortnight a case where this was not done; and I can assure the Government that it has given rise to a great deal of heartburning, not only amongst the men, who find themselves amongst men from a totally different county, but still more amongst their friends and relations in Lancashire. I know, of course, that there may be occasions when the military situation demands the course that has been taken, but I sincerely hope that as far as possible the county connection with regiments will be kept up.
I have only one word to say on the Third Reading itself, which is again to bring before the notice of His Majesty's Government the great desirability of co-ordinating the work of the Local and Appeal Tribunals and that of the assessors who are being sent down to each county to deal with the financial liabilities of the men. Unless you can get some co-ordination, which does not exist in the least at the present moment, you will have confusion and delay. It could not be in any way dealt with in this Bill, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will give this matter their consideration.
§ EARL KITCHENERI can assure noble Lords that no one believes more in the county association principle than I do. The War Office will do its utmost to keep regiments together in that way. They have behaved in a noble way on the field of battle, and we hope that the association will continue.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. (No. 41.)