Lords Sitting of 5 March 1918

VISCOUNT FURNESS.
Baron Furness, having been created Viscount Furness of Grantley, in the West Riding of the county of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ST. OLAVE'S CHURCH, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF KINTORE): My Lords, I have to make a formal Motion that the St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill be now read a second time. I can do so in almost a sentence, for into the questions of policy with regard to the altered conditions of City churches to-day it is not my province to enter. Nor, my Lords, if there was any opposition to the passage of the Bill would I be moving its Second Reading. So far from its being opposed, the preamble recites that the Prime Minister, on behalf of His Majesty (who is patron of the living), the Lord Bishop of the diocese, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the present rector of the parish all consent to the provisions of the Bill. The circumstances of the Bill are practically identical with the circumstances dealt with in, and its terms closely follow the terms of, several Acts of the same kind which I could mention.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give a power of sale of the old church of St. Olave, Southwark, and its site, as well as the burial ground and any foreshore rights belonging to the church, also the site of the old rectory and the existing rectory and its site, to the trustees whom the Bill names and appoints, to merge the existing parish into adjacent parishes, and to apply all moneys received from the sale of land, materials, and other properties under the Bill—subject, of course, to the necessary expenses—in the purchase of a site and in the building of a new church and rectory elsewhere in the diocese, subject to the Bishop's approval and consent, and in providing for an endowment of the new church and an increase of the emoluments of the rector and vicar of the parishes into which the parish of St. Olave is to be merged.
220
The trustees are to pay to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the net proceeds of the rates levied by them under Acts of Parliament, and the Bill sets out the objects to which all such proceeds are to be applied. The right of patronage and presentation to the new church is vested in His Majesty. I think that is a fair summary of the contents of the Bill.
With regard to the notice given by the noble Viscount below the gangway of his intention to move an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill, I venture to make two observations. The first is that I think this House is usually reluctant to fetter its Committees with Instructions, which tie their hands in considering a Bill on its merits; and the second is that if Lord Bryce's proposed Instruction be carried in its present form it would, I think, go a considerable way to defeat the purposes of the Bill. The churchyard in question is small—only some 634 square yards in extent—but its site is a very valuable one, to say nothing of the foreshore rights. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kintore.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to move that the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill be adjourned, and I suggest that a convenient day to which to adjourn it would be Thursday week. I make the suggestion for this reason. Those who are interested in the passage of the Bill are very desirous to enter upon reasonable negotiations with those concerned in the Instruction placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Bryce. It is quite true, as has been stated, that if that Instruction were made it would probably lead to the loss of the whole Bill, because the sum which might possibly be derived from the sale of the vacant site could not be obtained if the most important portion of that site—namely, the portion fronting on the river—were taken away under the conditions proposed. But I do not desire to pursue the matter further this afternoon, because I hope that negotiations will he carried forward, and perhaps the matter may be settled if your Lordships will allow the debate to be adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned—(Lord Parmoor.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE VISCOUNT BRYCE had given notice of his intention to move, after the Second Reading—
That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill shall be referred, to amend the Bill so as to provide that the disused burial ground, described as the churchyard, attached to the church (together with any foreshore of the River Thames attached or belonging thereto), shall be preserved unbuilt upon in compliance with Section 3 of the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, with a view to its enjoyment by the public as an Open space, under the provisions of the Open Spaces Act, 1906 and to preserve access thereto from Tooley-street across the church site.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that there is no wish on the part of those at whose instance I put down this Instruction, or on my own, to defeat the Bill, but that we regard the matter as being one of considerable importance. This is an attempt to over-ride, by a private Bill, the provisions of a public Statute passed as far back as the year 1884, amended in 1887, and confirmed by another public Act in 1906, under which these open spaces, arising from disused churchyards, have been kept for the enjoyment of the public, to the great benefit of the public, especially in crowded places. I have to observe, further, that the London County Council has petitioned against the Bill, and that the Bermondsey Borough Council has petitioned against it upon the same grounds as those which are set out in the Instruction standing in my name. We consider that a question of public policy of great gravity and magnitude is raised by this Bill, and that the point covered by the Instruction well deserves to be considered by your Lordships' House. I am perfectly ready to agree to the postponement suggested, and I hope on the day fixed to have an opportunity of stating at full length to your Lordships why, in the opinion of those who are most interested in the welfare of the people of London, the Instruction should be passed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I venture to enforce the appeal which my two noble friends have made for the adjournment of this debate? The London County Council, as the noble Viscount has just told the House, has petitioned against
222
the Bill, not exactly or only on the grounds contained in my noble friend's Instruction, but on somewhat wider grounds. I need not go into that at this moment, but I think, in the absence of the Lord Bishop of Southwark, and also of the most rev. Primate, who is naturally interested, it would be somewhat futile to proceed at this moment with the debate. I hope, therefore, that it will be deferred until the date that my noble friend suggests.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I do not intend to go into this subject at length, because I agree that it is far better to adjourn the debate. At the same time I should like, as representing in this House for the moment three of the open spaces societies of London, to say that I do not think we can quite agree with all that the Lord Chairman has said with regard to the advantages of the Bill. We think that it would be a very great pity indeed to override the Act of Parliament, especially in a district so crowded as Bermondsey; also, as the particular site is one on the river, we shall never be able to get it again, and it is the only site in Bermondsey or in that part of London which looks upon the river. I reserve what I have to say until later, when the Bill comes on again.
On Question, debate adjourned until Thursday, March 14.

THE SITUATION IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' leave, before public business is proceeded with, to refer, as some interest has been taken in it, to a Motion standing in my name in respect of Ireland, which was originally fixed to be taken on Thursday next—
To move to resolve, That as the present situation in Ireland has become a danger to the Empire and a menace to the successful prosecution of the war and to the security of life and property, it is incumbent on His Majesty's Government to enforce the law in that country.
I have ventured to postpone this Motion until Tuesday next, at the request of the Leader of the House. He signified to me that it would be more convenient for the Government if it was taken on Tuesday, and as there will probably be on that day, more time for your Lordships to consider the matter thoroughly, I have, I need not

223
say, complied with his request. Therefore the Motion stands for Tuesday, March 12, of for next Thursday.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.

SOLICITORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill, for which I ask your favourable consideration, is identical in terms with the one which passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House last session. I hope that your Lordships will not think that in again inviting your attention to this subject I am asking you unprofitably to employ your time. It is quite true that during the last session the Government were unable to adopt this measure, or to grant facilities for its passage in another place. But I think that your Lordships will all recognise that conditions have considerably altered since the time when I introduced this Bill last year. In the interval an event has happened which at that time was only dimly seen upon the horizon, but which, I think every one will agree, has materially altered the atmosphere in which this Bill will find itself. Six millions of women have now been entrusted with the right of electing representatives to Parliament; and while last year there was behind this Bill, as I verily believe, the united opinion of the large bulk of women, that opinion had no means whatever of finding effective Parliamentary voice. At this hour there will be massed in support of this measure the feeling of those 6,000,000 of voters, who know better than any one the relentlessness of the struggle in which any woman finds herself who has to try and obtain her living by honourable means.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships again by a long discussion as to the circumstances which have rendered the introduction of this Bill necessary; but perhaps you will forgive me if I recall to your attention the peculiar circumstances in which the solicitors' profession stands. At this present moment admission to the ranks of solicitors is regulated by an Act of Parliament which provides that, after articles have been granted and certain examinations have been passed, the person
224
who is successful may be entered by the Master of the Rolls on the Roll of Solicitors. That Statute, although it is couched in general language, has received a judicial interpretation which excludes from the generality of its words the whole of the female sex; and the consequence is that, in a profession that has for centuries been controlled by Statute, you find that, by Statute, women are excluded from any opportunity of entering into it and of practising its work.
The result of this is certainly very startling. Women are now fully qualified to discharge in a solicitor's office all legal business, with the possible exception of an appearance in the County Court—about which I am not so certain—and the administration of oaths, which is regulated by the grant of a licence by the Lord Chancellor, and which constitutes a solicitor a commissioner. Subject to those two comparatively trifling exceptions, I can think of no work in a solicitor's office which cannot at present be discharged by a woman, provided only that the woman is not doing it for her own profit. If she is doing it as the paid servant of a solicitor she can discharge it, and in certain instances she is discharging it efficiently and satisfactorily. If she attempts to discharge it in her own right and for her own profit, she commits a penal offence and can be sent to gaol. I find myself unable to think of any other occupation that is subject to such an extraordinary safeguard; and I ask your Lordships by this Bill to say that a woman who has qualified herself by study to practise the calling of a solicitor shall be able to do it on her own responsibility, for her own good, and for her own profit, and shall not be compelled, as she is to-day, always to work in it in a subordinate position.
On the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships, I referred to one or two striking instances which had come to my knowledge of women who to-day were, in fact, performing the work to which I have referred. Since then an instance has been placed before me of which I think your Lordships would be glad to hear. A solicitor wrote to me saying that he had begun very humbly, but had made his own way in the world and established a large and lucrative practice in a big manufacturing town. He had no sons, and in his work he was assisted by his daughter, who had been trained up to do the work just as he would have trained a boy. He said to me—and I think the

225
appeal will make itself felt in the minds of your Lordships—"When I go, the whole goodwill of my business vanishes. Why is it that my daughter should be prevented from carrying it on?" I see no answer to that. Why is it? The woman has proved that she can do the work; what is the reason why she should be unable to carry on this work, and honourably to discharge the duty under the sanction of tint law?
I noticed in The Times of yesterday that a statement was made that questions had been put to me with regard to this matter. They had not been put to me excepting through the paper; but as I gather that they represent the organised opinion of certain legal societies upon this point, perhaps I may read what they say. It is said—
"The law societies in Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham have indicated reasons why the Bill should not be proceeded with at the present time. They recognise that this and other highly important questions affecting the industrial and economic position of women will have to be dealt with after the war, but argue that they should not be dealt with in sections."
Then is put the following question—
"If, in the opinion of the distinguished lawyer who has introduced the Bill, women should be admitted to one branch of the profession, why not to the branch of the profession of which he is a member, and why exclude them consequentially from the Bench and from the numerous public appointments open only to members of the Bar?"
I will deal with that question in the inverse order in which it is put, and say a few words upon the latter part first. On the former occasion—if any of your Lordships who are present now were present then and have done me the honour of remembering anything that I said—your Lordships will remember that I pointed out that at the present moment there was nothing whatever on the Statute Book to prevent a woman from becoming a barrister; that there is nothing to prevent a woman from being admitted to one of the Inns of Court to-morrow if the Benchers chose to permit her entrance; and that though up to the present it is true that the Benchers have not granted that permission, there is nothing, as the law stands, to prevent its being done; and as, I think, only two cases have arisen in which the matter has been under their consideration, I am not sure that at the moment legislative interference is necessary to compel their action. But I pointed out then, and I desire to repeat now with all the emphasis that I
226
can command, that I see no reason whatever why women should not be admitted to the Bar, and I believe that the passage of this Bill is the surest and the most certain way of effecting that reform. It will be impossible, in my opinion, if once this Bill is passed and becomes operative and women begin to work under it, for the Benchers of the Inns to continue the attitude they have hitherto adopted, and prevent their entrance. If they do, then it may be a matter for consideration whether legislative interference—which I trust will be unnecessary—should compel them to act.
The questions that are suggested here, similar to those suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the occasion when this Bill was last before the House, do not appal me in the least. If, in fact, a woman is by her quality preeminently fitted to discharge any public duty, and is better fitted for that purpose than any male competitor, I should like to know why, in the public interest, she should not be allowed to discharge it. We may, as men, flatter ourselves that they never will be in the position in which they will do it better than we, but if there were a woman who, by her outstanding qualities, could discharge judicial duties, or any other duties, better than a man, I cannot understand why the public should be deprived of her work. It seems to me that the suggestions that a woman might be eligible for this, or might be eligible for that, but that she has never hitherto occupied the position, and therefore that she never can—those suggestions appear to me to be nothing but bogies with which you frighten children. They do not seem to me to have any reality whatever in them; and I say quite sincerely that I believe there are members of your Lordships' House who are accustomed to discharge the important duties—duties which are too often underrated—associated with the position of a magistrate who could point among your own immediate personal acquaintanceship to women whom you would be glad to see associated with you in the discharge of your magisterial duties. There are numbers of eases affecting young girls which appear with lamentable frequency before the magisterial Benches, in which I am certain that the view of a wise experienced woman would be of immense assistance in helping in the discharge of the painful and difficult duties cast upon the Bench. The point of this Bill is that women should be allowed to

227
try, that is all. If they fail, they have had their opportunity. and they will no longer be able to say that they have been shut out from a chance which they had of winning their way in the world by the operation of the Statute which appears to them, as it appears to me, to be harsh and unreasonable.
The rest of the suggestion is that this Bill ought to be dealt with, with other highly important questions affecting the industrial and economic position of women, after the war. What connection has a Bill of this kind with the industrial and economic position of women, outside the particular class of operations to which the Bill relates? How far does it affect the right of women to work in factories and workshops, and all those employments which are included in the general phrase "industrial and economic position of women"? There is no other certain occupation of which I can think where the entrance is rigidly defined by Act of Parliament. In every case, whatever woman's difficulties may be, they are not due to the existence of a Statute, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to remove the statutory difficulty placed in a woman's way through her being unable to obtain, on terms of equality with men, admission to this profession which the Statute safeguards. I can understand that anybody who did not want the Bill to pass might very well suggest that it should be associated with a number of other difficult and complicated questions, but in truth this is an isolated question and stands by itself, and I trust that your Lordships will regard it as wholly distinct in considering whether or not this Bill should be read a second time.
I remember also that on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was a little uneasy about this Bill for something of the same reasons as those which are referred to in this extract that I have read; but he had anxieties which do not appear here. I remember his mentioning the fact that if women were admitted under this Bill, and entrance to the Bar become possible, it would result that they would have to eat their dinners in company with men, and that appeared to strike him with awe. My Lords, I would like to ask you to consider just for a moment all that it means. In a large public hall—some of the biggest and finest halls in London—some girl who will be uneasy and probably not a little shy will find herself associated with some forty or fifty and maybe eighty men, who, what-
228
I ever their defects may be, have always prided themselves on belonging to a profession of gentlemen, with whom she would eat a humble dinner under the eyes of some ten or twenty Benchers at the upper table. What is it that appals and frightens the Lord Chancellor in this prospect? After all, men and women do eat dinners together at the present moment without any very terrible consequences ensuing. Why this particular form of extremely uninteresting dinner should be assumed to have these dire results I am unable to understand. Whatever other associations with women may be productive of disaster, I should have thought that this public and dietetic intercourse was harmless.
The only argument which was really an argument used on the last occasion was that although this may be a very good measure, now is not the right moment for its introduction. One asks why? The answer is, of course, that a number of men connected with the profession are nobly and honourably discharging their duties away from England. I realise this; but I pointed out on the last occasion, and I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat it, that if the Bill passes it will take a minimum of three years, and in the ordinary course five years, before any woman can become competent to practise, and therefore she cannot be brought into competition with the people who are away. I believe, however, that when these young men come back they will come back with a very much wider outlook on life than that with which they left England, and that they will be unwilling to stand in the way of women to whose services and devotion they owe so much. But, in truth, if any one is opposed to any particular measure, now is always the worst possible moment for its introduction. If anybody desires a measure to pass, now is the best possible moment for its introduction. I submit to your Lordships that now is the moment when this Bill should go through, and I trust that your Lordships will once more give it the honour of your favourable consideration, and that it will be possible to attribute to the action of your Lordships' House the tardy act of justice which this Bill will effect.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmoster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to call attention to the barbarous treatment of prisoners of war in Germany employed in factories, mines, and chemical works; and to move a Resolution. The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice the barbarous treatment by the Germans of our prisoners in Germany. The question has been before your Lordships' House several times before, but only in regard to the prisons. I want to speak with regard to the munition factories, the chemical works, and the mines. I believe there are altogether about 3.000,000 prisoners in Germany. I am not entitled to say what number of these are British, but there are a good number; and neutral visitors are not entitled to pay any visits either to the mines, the factories, or to the chemical works, although they are allowed to visit the prisons, the claim of the Germans being that, it is necessary for military reasons that they should not visit factories, chemical works, and mines.
From the information which I have received, there is a deliberate system of torture going on in these places which are not visited. Take the system of men being put into tanks of cold water, forty or fifty at a time, or the system by which cold water is dropped on their heads, causing tremendous agony, the men after a number of hours being allowed out to recover and then returned to the tanks. Then I believe there are some of these places where the punishment lasts for twelve hours. Another system of punishment is by steam cages, where they are sometimes kept twenty-four hours. If they faint they are taken out and beaten. One man's arm was broken in defending himself against the club with which he was beaten. They are made to stand in front of the ovens and look into the furnace, and in these cases, too, if they are faint they are beaten. There is the case of one man being put in a room with a savage dog, and warned that if he killed the dog he would be shot.
I believe the whole of what, I am describing is against. International Law. There is a system of payment. There is a German foreman with two workmen. When 30 marks are paid, the German foreman would get 20 marks and each of the British prisoners 5. There is the case of men being driven into a river 400 at a time. They
230
were kept there at the point of the bayonet for from six to eight hours. On one occasion seven died and thirty-two went to hospital. Afterwards several died from frost-bite, and a good number contracted tuberculosis. Men have been made to stand in the cold, in the snow, bareheaded, barefooted, and without jackets, and at intervals a hose has been turned on them. If their output of work does not come up to the standard which the Germans think right, they are subjected to these tortures, and if they have extra shifts they get no pay. A good many of our men have died from swellings of the hands and feet and faces, shortage of food, and overwork.
I must refer to the repulsive and barbarous manner in which the Red Gross women of Germany have treated our prisoners. They have pulled off their bandages, given them water after spitting in it, and committed every atrocious and bestial act they could commit. I think it wise, my Lords, to bring these things before the public. The public ought to know how our men are being treated in Germany, when we are allowing aliens of every class to be loose in this country, and are feeding the German prisoners better than our own population.
A NOBLE LORD: No, no.
LORD BERESFORD: Some one says "No, no," but it is a fact. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer me afterwards. I can give proof of it. A great number of these prisoners are worked to death. The German thinks the British workman is with him, because we are told that this war is against bureaucracy and against the governing power, not against the nation. I say the whole nation is responsible for these brutalities. The people need not commit them even if they are ordered to do so, but they commit them on every occasion they can. I should like to give the case of Corporal Rogers, of the Essex Regiment, who was captured on April 14, 1917. A letter from him while he was a prisoner at Antwerp has been received. He states that he has been practically in solitary confinement for nine months, with not a soul to speak to, and his opportunities for conversation have been only now and then a few words in French. He is always cold and hungry, and without a pair of socks for his feet. He is unable to wash his shirt, and his food consists of one small piece of bread and a little soup daily. I do

231
not want to refer to the prisoners at Ruhleben, because I think my noble friend Lord Devonport is to bring their case forward this week.
To make it clear that what I have said is not hearsay, I will give the names of the coal mines where the men are working. I am not sure that my German is correct, but the names are Gladbach, Thyssins, Stiemes, Herveret, Dorsten, and Lohberg. The factories are Wanheim and Mulheim, and the chemical works Recklingen and Spandau. There are some other places for which I cannot vouch, but I can vouch for these. I should like also to refer to our prisoners in Turkey, with regard to whose case I gave my noble friend warning. I received a letter the other day from an officer. It was sent by a man who lost his arm and was made prisoner at Suez. It is dated November 14, 1917. He states that of these prisoners 95 per cent. of the British have died through deliberate cruelty and neglect. Whether this is true or not I do not know, but it is in the letter. The places where our prisoners are in Turkey are Kastamuni, Angora, and Yozgad. They get no fire and no food except once a day, and they bribe the guards for bread. The country does not know of these horrors, and it ought to know how our men are being treated, not only in the memory of those who have died for us, but because of those who are suffering for us now. We seem to be forgetting in this country what these men have done for us, and I think it right and proper that these cases should be brought before the country as often as they can be.
Then I take up the paper and read of Members of Parliament speaking of "our German friends" and "our German comrades." It makes any Service man's blood boil to read such expressions as these when we know how our men are suffering abroad. One more thing I should like to say. I hope the Government will let the commandants of these places know that their deeds are known, that they are logged, that there is documentary evidence of them, and that this country intends that the men who commit these barbarities shall be punished when the war is over.
LORD FORESTER: My Lords, I ask your indulgence on the first occasion on which I venture to address your Lordships' House. I do so in support of the noble Lord who has just sat down, for two reasons.
232
The first reason is that as an officer of His Majesty's Army, I think it is my duty to do all I can to further the interests of any of the men whom I have trained and who may be out there under the conditions which the noble Lord has described. The second reason is that I have recently had an opportunity of an interview with a British medical officer who has just been repatriated from Germany. He brought me a message from a friend of mine who is interned in the same camp in which he was interned. He also took me down to see some of the men who have been recently repatriated and who are at present at the King George's Hospital. Any noble Lord who wishes for confirmation can go and ask these men, and he will get it. I asked these men myself. I saw one poor man who had been compelled to work for months standing in water sometimes up to his knees, and sometimes up to his waist. He is now paralysed. He has been repatriated paralysed. His chum has not been quite so fortunate. His chum was taken with that terrible complaint tuberculosis, and was still compelled to go on working in all kinds of weathers. One day he felt absolutely unfit to do anything. He begged to see the German doctor and to be allowed to go sick, but he was told, "No; you must go out and work." He was driven out, but had not the strength to raise a pick or wield a shovel. What do you think they did, my Lords? They tied him to a post in the rain, and the next day he was dead. Any one who wants to verify these facts can go to King George's Hospital and he will be able to do so.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but I would like to give you one or two examples of what this British medical officer told me. He volunteered to go to work in one of these camps in the mining district of Minister in Westphalia. He went there. The men are sent to these districts, or kommandos. They are sent under a German officer, who is not only in the pay of the German Government as a non-commissioned officer, but who is also paid by the mine owners to whom the men are hired out in proportion to the amount of work he can drive out of them. His, my Lords, is piece work; the work of the men is not. The men are paid for work underground 90 pfennigs per day, about 9d., and for work above ground 30 pfennigs per day, or about 3d. This is for a twelve-hour shift, according to my information first-hand from this medical

233
officer. But, in addition, every seven days they are forced to do an extension of twenty-four hours' work. The food given them is absolutely unfit for human consumption. It consists, for breakfast, of one litre of coffee, made out of the seeds of sunflowers, about 1½ pints, and for dinner they get soup made out of fertilisers or decomposed shell fish. For supper they get the same kind of watery soup. In addition to this, they are allowed 200 grammes of black bread per day. Consequently very few men who do not get parcels from home survive to tell the tale.
According to my information those men who do survive for six or eight months invariably inflict injuries on themselves to get out of it. They either drive a pick through their foot, put their hands between railway trucks in order to get them crushed, or make incisions upon themselves in order to get out of this horrible nightmare because they can stand it no longer. I do not wish to weary yon with any more details. There are plenty more of the same kind, but I desire to support the noble and gallant Lord, and I hope the Government will see their way, however distasteful it may be and however much they dislike it, to do something to mitigate the sufferings of these non who have fought for this country and have stood between it and the fate that has overtaken Belgium, Serbia, and other countries where the Hun has placed his foot.
THE ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord opposite, who has brought this Motion forward, expressed the opinion that it was extremely useful that information of this character should be given to the public from time to time, and therefore he felt himself amply justified in bringing these cases before the notice of the Government. I cannot help thinking that information of this kind would be very much more valuable if there were more precision about it, and if there were less irrelevancy in the noble Lord's statements. The noble and gallant Lord puts a Motion on the Paper relating to the employment of prisoners in mines and factories, and, I think, in chemical works. In the course of his remarks he introduced the treatment of prisoners by women belonging to the German Red Cross, and adduced the experiences of Corporal Rogers since his
234
capture three years or more, ago, and then went on to ask for explanations with regard to the treatment of our prisoners in Turkey. We are accustomed to considerable latitude in this House, but I venture to think that this is an almost abnormal instance.
I would like to point out that it is not very easy to make a detailed reply to the noble Lord, because the names of the places which he mentioned are not, in some cases, names of places at all. They are names of individuals. For instance, there is the name of Stiemes; that is the name of a German financial magnate. There is also the name Thyssins; that also is the name of a German commercial magnate. Unless the noble Lord will supply me with the names of the mines which these proper names denote, I am afraid I cannot supply him with the information he requires.
With regard to those places he did mention, I am able to give him some information. One of the places was Recklingen. That is a chemical work, and was visited in November of last year by the Dutch; at that time there were only two British prisoners employed there. Mulheim was visited on December 7. There were nineteen men in hospital, and sixty-two men were working there, and the Dutch report was that the conditions were satisfactory. I think another place mentioned was Wanheim. There are two Wanheims, and they were both visited in September last. Another place, I think, mentioned was Herveret. There were seventy-six men employed at Herveret on agricultural work, and the Dutch report was that the conditions were good. Lohberg, another place mentioned by the noble Lord, we have no information about. Spandau was visited some time ago, but we will take steps to have it visited again. Speaking generally, my Lords, it is perfectly true that the conditions, more especially in the coal mines, are very often absolutely deplorable, and the noble Lord who spoke last was justified in much of what he said, although it would have been better had he furnished me with some names and places.
LORD FORESTER: I said Münster.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, but Münster is what is called a Standlager—a central camp containing thousands and thousands of men. No doubt what the noble Lord had in mind was a small working camp, probably a coal mine, in which only a few men are em-

235
ployed. I do not know whether he realises that there are thousands and thousands of these working camps spread over Germany, and in a few cases only are few men employed. That makes the difficulty all the greater.
LORD FORESTER: They are sent free, Münster to these kommandos.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, it is an Arbeiter command, and if the noble Lord will give me the name of the working kommando where these events have taken place I shall be quite ready to inquire into it. It is evident that the circumstances lend themselves to these men being treated in many cases with great brutality. They are spread about all over the place, possibly only supervised by a non-commissioned officer, and are handed over to a contractor who no doubt in many cases treats them very badly.
The noble Lord mentioned the long hours of work and the small rate of pay. As regards the rate of pay, I do not suppose that the pay received by the German military prisoners here is any higher than that received by our men in Germany, speaking generally; and as to the hours of work, I am prepared to admit—in fact, I know it to be the case—that in many instances they are very often greatly overworked. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the hours of labour, generally speaking, are much longer than they are in this country, and whenever we make the complaint that the British prisoners are unduly hard worked the reply is that they are not made to work any harder than German civilians.
In many of these places the conditions are no doubt deplorable. I hope that they are not so bad as they are represented by the noble Lord. If he can give me chapter and verse and the names of the men who suffered and the places where they suffered, those cases shall be inquired into. But however bad the conditions may be in those particular instances, I admit that they are absolutely deplorable in many places. It not unfrequently happens that the big companies to whom these men are handed over, occasionally—I do not say very often—do their best for the men, and make their existence as little disagreeable as is possible in the case of a prisoner of war. At best the lot of a prisoner of war cannot be a happy one, but it would be dishonest on
236
my part were I not to admit that pretty frequently German civilian employers have done what they could to mitigate the hardships of British prisoners.
All I desire to say, in replying generally to the noble Lord opposite, is that whenever we hear of a case in which we have reason to believe that a British prisoner has been improperly treated we invariably make representations at Berlin, and we endeavour—and almost always succeed—in securing a visit of inspection from the Dutch representatives; but, as the House will easily understand, it is almost a physical impossibility for these Dutch representatives to visit every single small working camp in the country. I believe that these gentlemen do their best, and I have often myself wished that I was at liberty to publish their reports, because, after all, the reports by the protecting Power ought to constitute the basis of our information with regard to the condition of prisoners generally. If the noble Lord opposite or any one else chooses to bring forward the names of any men who have been improperly treated, or will give me the name of any place where a man has been wrongly treated, we will certainly make inquiries. I think that I can take upon myself to say with a certain amount of assurance that he will find that in almost every case his wishes have been anticipated, and that these representations have been made already. I have proposed a solution of this question myself which seems to be more satisfactory than visits, or retaliation, or anything of that kind—namely, that both Governments should agree not to employ men underground. I cannot help thinking that if we could arrive at an agreement upon that point it would be much more beneficial to prisoners and everybody else concerned than if we were to engage in perpetual recrimination with each other, and eventually wore forced to adopt retaliatory measures.
Before I conclude, I will allude to what the noble Lord said with regard to Kut prisoners. I am not prepared to make a statement upon that in reply to what were mostly rumours from the noble Lord. As the noble Lord knows, I was not so very long ago occupied—and it took me a very considerable time—in negotiating an agreement with the Turks with regard to the exchange and the general treatment of our prisoners. That agreement, I regret to say, has not yet been ratified, and we cannot expect any substantial improvement in the

237
treatment of our prisoners in Turkey until that agreement has been ratified and is in process of being carried out. As soon as it is ratified, I shall be most happy to give the noble Lord and everybody else all the information that is within my power. At the same time I rather deprecate the somewhat vague statements which are made, I am convinced, by the noble Lord in good faith, but really without knowledge of the circumstances. They lead to a somewhat mistaken view as to what the conditions actually are, not only in Turkey, but also frequently in Germany.
LORD SYDENHAM: Can the noble Lord state what is the pay of a German prisoner working above ground in this country?
LORD NEWTON: No; I cannot tell the noble Lord. That really is a question for the War Office; but he may take it from me that the rates of pay approximate in the two countries.
TEE EARL OF ANCASTER: Is not the rate of pay here for an agricultural labourer 5d. per hour?
LORD NEWTON: The noble Earl is probably speaking of civilian prisoners.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No, German prisoners of war. There is a leaflet which gives the rate of pay at 5d. an hour.
LORD NEWTON: That is not my affair. It is settled by the War Office.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord alluded to a case where I think there were nineteen prisoners in hospital and sixty at work. That seems to me to be a high proportion of prisoners in hospital, and to suggest that the treatment meted out to the English prisoners in Germany, at any rate in some cases, is not what it ought to be. I have had experience of many camps of ours where German prisoners are, and I have been startled by the lack of illness among German prisoners in British camps behind the lines in France. If I may do so, I will allude to just one case. I went into a German camp where there were between 350 and 400 prisoners. I saw them all at work in their different occupations, and I went into their camp hospital and found in the hospital only two out of the 380 men at work in the camp. I asked
238
what the two in hospital were suffering from. One told me that he had a slight attack of diarrhœa, and the other that he had toothache. That speaks very highly indeed for the way in which German prisoners in France are looked after by our authorities, and it does seem to me that something must be lacking in Germany when you get nineteen in hospital out of sixty employed.
LORD NEWTON: I think I can explain those figures. I am speaking on supposition, but I have little doubt that at the place where I mentioned, Mulheim, there were nineteen in hospital. I did not mean nineteen out of the sixty employed there. This is most likely a central hospital to which sick cases would be brought from the neighbouring working camps.
LORD GAINFORD: Did not the noble Lord say that there were nineteen in hospital out of sixty at work?
LORD NEWTON: Yes; but Mulheim itself probably is a hospital to which men are brought from surrounding places where they are employed.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I am very disappointed with my noble friend's reply, especially in view of the way that he himself has worked in the interest of these prisoners. He charged me with bringing forward a series of undigested statements, Ix something to that effect. My statements are bona fide, for I got them from the men themselves. The noble Lord wants me to give him further information. Why does he not go down himself, or send some one down from the Government, to the hospital to see these men and get the information from them? He said that I had made certain statements about Stiemes and Thyssins. These are chemical works, and are called by the names of the people who own them, and I was perfectly justified in bringing them forward.
LORD NEWTON: Where are they?
LORD BERESFORD: I cannot tell the noble Lord where they are, but I can tell him where he can see the man who knows where they are. They are in Germany.
LORD NEWTON: Exactly.
LORD BERESFORD: That is where our prisoners are, and that is where they have to be looked after better than they

239
are at this moment. I spoke about the prisoner at Antwerp. I think that I was justified in bringing forward his case. I had a letter only two days ago about this man. Had I known about it earlier I would have informed the noble Lord that I was going to mention the name. With regard to the Turkish prisoners, I wrote to my noble friend and told him that I was going to bring up the question of the Turkish prisoners. I think if my noble friend looks into the case of the pay he will find that he is entirely wrong. The hours are much longer in Germany than they are here; the pay, I think he will find, is double here; and at any rate the food is good here and the food is not good there, and the German prisoners are not tortured and treated brutally as the English prisoners are in Germany. I will look up the question again and bring it before your Lordships on another occasion. I do not think my noble friend's reply was at all sympathetic. I expected him to be much stronger on the question of these brutalities which our men are suffering, and I still think I was right to bring the question before your Lordships' House and the country, and to let the people know how these men are suffering who have fought for us in this war.

GRANT TO LADY MAUDE.
The King's Message of February 28 taken into consideration (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I rise to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message informing this House that His Majesty, having taken into consideration the eminent services rendered by the late Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Stanley Maude, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., while commanding His Majesty's Forces during the campaign in Mesopotamia, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, of conferring some signal mark of his favour upon his widow, recommends to the House of Lords that they should concur in granting Lady Maude the sum of £25,000; and to assure His Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling him to make such provision."
240
But few words are, I am convinced, required from me to ensure the eager acceptance by your Lordships of the Motion which I have just read.
The late General Maude was a man who was destined, not merely by birth but by natural inclination, to a soldier's career. The son of an eminent General who himself wore the Victoria Cross, an Eton boy, a Guardsman, he had served in many capacities in this country and abroad, in Canada, in South Africa, in Egypt, and at the War Office, before his opportunity came. War is a great leveller of distinctions, but it is also a supreme discoverer of merit; and it is not too much to say that General Maude was one of the discoveries, although to none of his friends was he one of the surprises, of the present war. At the beginning of the war he was only a Lieutenant-Colonel. In 1914 he was given a Brigade, and went to France. He took part in the Battle of Mons, and was wounded in the retreat upon Paris. In 1915 he was sent in command of a Division to the Dardanelles, and there, in command of his force—known locally, I believe, as the "Iron Legion"—he shared not merely in the perils and privations, but also in the glories, of that momentous and fateful campaign. He was, indeed, almost the last British officer to leave the peninsula when evacuation took place. And I have been told that had the Turkish forces shown anything like the alertness which might have been expected, they might have materially altered the course of future events and themselves captured on the beaches the future conqueror of Baghdad.
In 1916, General Maude was sent with his Division to Mesopotamia, where he took part in the arduous operations that were then in course of being carried out for the relief of the beleaguered garrison of Kut. As your Lordships will remember, that place fell after a heroic defence by General Townshend and his brave men; and in August of that year General Maude succeeded Sir Percy Lake as Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia. It was a dark moment in the history of the war; it was a critical moment in the fortunes of Great Britain in the East. The issues of the conflict themselves trembled in the balance, and the prestige of the British Empire may be described not unfairly as having been at stake. General Maude had to deal with an enemy flushed with victory, entrenched in

241
a position of exceptional strength, provided with all the scientific military resources which he had received from his European ally. The advance upon Baghdad in the month of December, 1916, the dramatic crossing of the Tigris, the forced evacuation of Kut by the Turks, the disorderly retreat of the fleeing enemy upon Baghdad, the rapid pursuit by General Maude and his men constituted a military achievement of no mean order.
But General Maude was by no means content with his initial victory; he was not the kind of man to rest upon his laurels. Following the Turks with great speed up the Dialah River in one direction, up the Tigris in another, and, at a later date, up the waters of the Euphrates, he inflicted upon them a series of crushing defeats which rendered them incapable of any further sustained military effort. He lifted the danger which overhung the Persian border, and which might, unless arrested, have reacted, through Persia, upon Afghanistan, and upon India itself, and he occupied the whole of the Baghdad vilayet. And be it remembered that he carried out the series of operations which I have described, labouring under a sense of bitter disappointment at the failure of our Russian Allies, who were at that time in the North-western parts of Persia, to extend to him the support which he had reason to expect.
The last few months of General Maude's life were devoted to the task of organising and administering the territories which he had won; and there in November, 1917, in an act of unthinking courtesy, he contracted that fatal pestilence which always broods behind the atmosphere of the East, and in a few hours had passed away. Thus in a few months of time it was given to General Maude to achieve what many military commanders do not attain in a lifetime. He retrieved a great disaster; he won a resounding victory; he recovered a province—almost a country—once one of the gardens of the East, which had mouldered for centuries under the blight of Turkish misrule. Nay, more. By a single stroke, or series of strokes, he may be said to have altered the history of the world. For it is surely inconceivable that the inhabitants of those fair regions can ever be thrust back into the servitude from which General Maude and his forces succeeded in emancipating them. And then in the hour of his triumph the General was stricken down, not, indeed, on the battlefield, but, as I
242
have pointed out, by a death not less honourable, and infinitely more pathetic.
My Lords, if we turn from the contemplation of the soldier to that of the man, there is a consensus of opinion among those who knew General Maude well—of whom, unfortunately, I was not one—that not merely did he possess the genius of a military commander, but that he had many qualities of personal character which endeared him to all those with whom he was associated. The soul of chivalry, he was not less strict in the discipline that he applied to himself than he was in that which he applied to others. A non-smoker, almost a total abstainer, he set an example of conscientious abnegation and self-control which profoundly affected the conduct of those whom he either commanded or who served with him. At the same time, he was kind and thoughtful to a degree to his soldiers, and, as abundant testimony confirms, he was exceptionally considerate to the native inhabitants of the countries that had passed under his sway. Thus I think we may say of the departed General that in manifold respects he fulfilled the ideal of the Happy Warrior which was drawn for us in such moving terms by one of the greatest of our poets more thin n a century ago.
Fate has deprived us of the opportunity of crowning with glory the victorious survivor and hero of this memorable campaign; and the only tribute, other than that of words, to his memory that we can now offer is the provision recommended by His Majesty for the widow and family whom he has left without the means to sustain the position which the head of the family had won. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be proud to join in that tribute of sorrowing sympathy and profound respect. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious Message informing this House that His Majesty, having taken into consideration the eminent services rendered by the late Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Stanley Maude, K.C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., while commanding His Majesty's Forces during the campaign in Mesopotamia, and being desirous, in recognition of such services, of conferring some signal mark of his favour upon his widow, recommends to the House of Lords that they should concur in granting Lady Maude the sum of £25,000;

243
and to assure His Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling him to make such provision.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this Motion is so sure of receiving the universal assent of your Lordships' House that it is really more for my own satisfaction as a very old friend of General Maude—having known him in the days when he was a subaltern in the Coldstream Guards—that I rise to say a word in its support, although, indeed, that is not necessary after the eloquent statement which has been made by the noble Earl who leads the House.
General Maude was a man who was always greatly regarded and beloved by his friends. He was a quiet and dignified man even in his younger days. He had the reputation of being a most excellent regimental officer, and he also became a careful student at the Staff College. I know very well that the senior officers of that day always looked upon him as a man who, if the time of test came, would prove himself to be in all respects an admirable soldier. How the test would come, and how severe it would be, of course nobody in those days could foretell; but that it was met not merely with the gallantry which everybody would have expected of General Maude, but also with a degree of military skill which was to a great degree the reward of the hard work that he had exercised in his younger days, will not be denied by anybody.
As the noble Earl has stated, the circumstances of General Maude's death were singularly pathetic. He knew, of course, the admiration which his conduct and that of his troops had won from his fellow-countrymen, but he was not spared to receive at home those tributes of respect and affection which would have been lavished on him had he returned here. We all, I am certain, feel that this small tribute is the least that the country can pay to his memory. General Maude was a poor man, the son of a younger son; but had his life been spared he would have no doubt filled for many years high positions of great military trust which would have been reward to at any rate an adequate extent. I feel that even the most churlish of those who profess to object on principle to pecuniary grants for military services could not desire—at least it seems
244
incredible that they could—that to the heavy loss which his widow and family have sustained should be added the anxieties of narrow means. I am certain that the whole country will approve the action which your Lordships and the other House have taken.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to be permitted to add a few words about one whom I knew very well, and with whom I was at one time closely associated. The noble Earl the Leader of the House felicitously referred to General Maude as a discovery but not a surprise in his pre-eminence. To me I can scarcely say that he was a discovery, because I had an opportunity of seeing these qualities very early in his career. At the time when the Territorial Forces Act passed, and when it was very doubtful whether men and officers could be got to come forward, it was necessary to make personal efforts, and night after night, afternoon after afternoon, General Maude—who was the General Staff officer attached to the Territorial Forces organisation at the War Office—used to set off with me sometimes to distant parts to stir up enthusiasm. Mine was the ornamental part, but his was the difficult business of explaining away all difficulties and of showing how things could be accomplished. This he did with supreme ability. He then showed the great quality, which I think was distinctive of him afterwards, of visualising clearly and distinctly what was the object which he had in view, and at the same time of being conscious almost by intuition of the means by which to attain that object. That was a distinctive characteristic of him and the secret of his success in those much humbler days in his life. Later when he became the commander of a Brigade, and again of a Division, and again of a Corps, and finally when he become a Commander-in-Chief, he always visualised with the utmost distinctness what he was aiming at, and he always knew how to get at his object.
Shortly before his death I had a long letter from him in which he told me that he considered he had turned himself completely into an administrator. He knew what he meant to do, and was concentrating upon that very necessary grasp of the material facts and resources which a great General always has and always insists upon in himself before he sets out to the attainment of a new object. From the personal experience and intimacy which I

245
was privileged to have at one time, I am able to testify, as noble Lords who have spoken have already done, to General Maude's great qualities, to his personal charm, and to his supreme combination of the two kinds of military gift. His death is a great loss to the nation. We can ill do without him. The least we can render now in the way of tribute is to support this Motion, which will at least do something for those whom he has left behind.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to their on the 27th ultimo—namely, "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present session
246
be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present session.
That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

E. Loreburn.

L. Wrenbury.

L. Sanderson.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Parmoor.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five members of that House to join with the said Committee, to which has been referred the Income. Tax Bill [H.L.].
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.