Lords Sitting of 13 March 1918

ALDERSHOT GAS, WATER, AND DISTRICT LIGHTING BILL. [H.L.]
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to Order).

  SOLICITORS (ARTICLED CLERKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I beg to present a Bill to modify the requirements of the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1917, with respect to articled clerks who have served in His Majesty's Forces or in other public service, or have been prisoners of war or interned in connection with the present war, and to ask your Lordships to read it a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  THE INDIAN CAVALRY CORPS.
  LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether units of the Indian Cavalry Corps that took part in the battle of Cambrai did not behave with the greatest gallantry and performed signal service; and whether information further than what has been supplied can be given.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, from different sources I have heard many reports of how the Indian Cavalry Corps behaved with the greatest gallantry at Cambrai. I am not in a position to verify the reports. There has been no official statement as to their conduct at Cambrai. Hence I have put this Question on the Paper, hoping that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for War may be able to give some further information. It is of course, a very delicate task for any Army Commander to distinguish between one unit and another with regard to their particular action, but if what I have heard, through indirect sources, is correct, it seems to me that a departure might be excusable in this instance, on account of the fact that this Indian Cavalry Corps has served so
  416
  long in France. They came over, quite contrary to all their caste customs, they crossed many thousand miles of sea, they had to break their caste rules, they came to France at an early stage of the war, during 1914 and 1915, and they had to undergo all the miseries of trench warfare. After that period I do not think they did have much actual fighting to do, but no doubt that year and a half of inactivity must have been more trying to those who constitute the Indian Cavalry Corps than actual warfare. All that time, I believe, they maintained their efficiency and discipline, and last November they were called upon to take part in the affair at Cambrai. Then it was, as I have heard, that their conduct was particularly fine, though it was not a bit more gallant than what anybody would expect of them, as everybody who knows anything of the Indian Cavalry recognises what high standards of honour and valour they have.
  Another reason why an exception may, perhaps, be made and why we should recognise fully what this corps have done for us in this war is that we must remember they are not of our own race, but this does not prevent them from being most loyal and devoted servants of the King-Emperor. It must also be remembered that they have been placed under particular disabilities, because during this long period in France they have been absolutely divorced from their own country. They have not been able to have ten days or a fortnight's leave; it is only quite recently, I think, that some leave system has been introduced.
  For these different reasons, therefore, although it might be invidious in many cases to single out particular corps for praise, if the noble Earl is able to verify what I have heard as rumour, I think it would be well if the public in this country were enlightened as to what they owe to this very fine body of men.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, this is just one of the questions in regard to which any one who holds my position must be extremely grateful for having put forward, as it gives one an opportunity of testifying in public to the great services that these soldiers from India have done for their country and for their King-Emperor since the beginning of the war, and are still doing. It is quite true that they behaved with great gallantry in

  417
  the Cambrai operations. I may mention a little incident which I have been told. I have not officially verified it, but I believe it to be true. It relates to one particular regiment which was associated in that fight with the Guards Division, which, we all know, did so magnificently. Their gallantry on that occasion was so much appreciated by the Guards Division that the Guards made a present of plate to this particular regiment as a memento of the occasion. I think that this little incident will show the great appreciation in which these Indian Cavalry regiments are held by their brothers in arms in the other forces of His Majesty.
  I think it will be understood that in a Despatch like that from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, recently published, giving a general survey of the important operations, it is not possible to dwell on the achievements of individual regiments in detail. Many regiments, British regiments from overseas as well as Indian regiments, performed splendid feats which could not be recorded in the Despatch. I have taken a step which I hope your Lordships will recognise must not be used as a precedent. It would never do for a Secretary of State for War, whoever he is, to write to a Commander-in-Chief and ask him to include in his Despatches regiments for special mention. That, as I think everybody will agree, would be entirely wrong. But in this particular case I wrote to Sir Douglas Haig, the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France, and asked him to let me have an account of the part played by the Indian Cavalry in the Cambrai Battle. He has written me something which is almost in the nature of a Despatch. It is very interesting, but is too long to read now. Therefore I propose to circulate it through the Press for general information.
  I again want to thank the noble Lord for having put this Question, and to testify to the great pride that all who know what the Indian Cavalry are must feel that on this occasion, as on all others, they have come up to their splendid reputation.

  THE CLOSE TIME FOR FRESHWATER FISH.
  LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the present shortage of food, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would be prepared
  418
  to consider the advisability of reducing the, close time for coarse freshwater fresh.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask this Question with no thought of hostility to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but in the hope of being able to hurry up the matter, because there is very little time to spare. To-morrow is the last day for catching freshwater fish throughout most of the rivers of England and Wales, and therefore if this Order is not sent out with the utmost possible dispatch, we of the Freshwater Fish Commission will be inundated with letters from various anglers asking whether, as the subject has been mooted, they will be allowed to fish fresh coarse fish in their rivers. There is no more keen upholder of the Mundella Act than the great angling societies of the North and elsewhere, but on this occasion the Federation of Anglers, which has something like 100,000 members and thirty-two large affiliated associations, has, in view of the great shortage of food, been willing to waive their objections to a curtailment of the close season and to agree to at all events one month being docked from the usual close time for freshwater fish. Therefore they have sent in a request that the close season, instead of beginning on March 15, should not begin till April 15. That would include Easter Monday, when enormous numbers of anglers, including munition workers, would be able to get hundreds of thousands of dinners out of the various waters in their neighbourhood. They also make another recommendation—that is, that the close time for pike should be taken away altogether, for the duration of the war.
  With regard to eels, they ask that all restrictions for angling for eels should be removed at all times where they exist. There is no doubt that this country has been neglecting eels, which are a most valuable source of food supply. I could say a great deal about eels, but I will not. Eels possess even more calories than the salmon; and it may not be known to your Lordships that, according to German information which is available, about three times the amount in eels were consumed there than of Scottish salmon. Most of the eel traps in the Thames and other rivers have fallen into desuetude. To show your Lordships how easy it is to catch eels, I might tell you that a gentleman who owns a very valuable trout fishery near Stockbridge caught, in addition

  419
  to 1 ton of trout, 2 tons of eels in one trap, which brought him in £200. I think this shows that, if the prevailing neglect of eel fishing all over the country were remedied, a very valuable food, of enormous use in these times, would be cheaply supplied to the people.
  In conclusion I would say that the matter is urgent and important. Tomorrow is the last day on which coarse fish can be caught in the Thames and most other rivers. If I get a favourable reply I shall immediately telegraph it to the fishing papers, which will save a great deal of correspondence, and do away with the uncertainty which is now felt by anglers.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that there are many of your Lordships who, like myself, will feel gratitude to the noble Lord for having put this Question on the Paper; but I am sure that he recognises, as your Lordships will, that it deals with only one side of a very important question. The noble Lord's proposal merely is that the close time for these coarse fish should be limited; and, as I understand, it is to be limited at the most critical time in the history of the fish, because it is to be limited at the time when they are going to spawn. It would be far more important to limit it at the other end of the period.
  LORD DESBOROUGH: The evidence which I have is that most of the fish caught by anglers, such as roach, are in very good condition up to May. Anglers think that if the close time is extended it should be the other way, as the fish are at their best now.
  LORD BUCKMASTER: I was not thinking for the moment of the edibility of the fish so much as of the enormous importance of conserving and of developing as far as possible our fish supplies. If it be that you might safely extend the present period for fishing for another month now without materially interfering with the spawning capacity of the fish, well and good. If not, it seems to me—though the noble Lord's knowledge is far greater than mine—to be more desirable to make the alteration at the other end of the period. Although the Question does not cover more than the mere point of time during which fish may be taken, yet it does invite suggestions
  420
  which I cannot help thinking ought carefully to be borne in mind by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  After all, the real thing we want to secure is that there shall be the greatest possible number of fish developed and protected in our inland waters; and up to this moment practically all that has been done has been the imposition of a close time. There has been next to nothing done—except by the great Conservancy Board over which the noble Lord so efficiently presides—to protect the waters from pollution, or to protect the fish when they are in an immature state. It must be common knowledge to all of us that the recent introduction of tar upon the roads has, either as its immediate or indirect consequence, ruined and destroyed mile after mile of fishing water. I know well the accuracy of what I am stating, because I have seen miles of beautiful water absolutely sterilised by the introduction of tar upon the roads. It is no answer, of course, for scientific people to say that fish enjoy the tar. The real test of the matter is to be found in this, that wherever you tar the roads sooner or later the fish are destroyed. It may not be as a direct result of the tar, but it probably is; because you have made an impermeable surface on the roads from which you can wash poison into the rivers. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should see to it that there are proper catch-pits supplied to prevent the water being poisoned. It is no use leaving this to private individuals. They have to face a local authority who have behind them the whole of the rates; and, as everybody knows, the private person is in a very difficult position with regard to obtaining costs from a local authority even if he succeeds.
  Another thing is this. Surely it is time to establish some wider supervision over the whole of our fish culture. Nobody is certain at this moment whether the increase of seagulls has or has not affected fish life. It would be a senseless thing to start a campaign for killing seagulls until full inquiry discloses whether in fact they did or did not interfere with the growth and development of the fish. Many people think that they do so interfere. If they do, steps might be taken—not by shooting the birds, which is a barbarous practice, but by destroying their eggs—so as to prevent damage to the fish.

  421
  A further matter which I think is of great importance—and I trust the noble Lord will refer to it in his answer—is with regard to the destruction of spent salmon, the kelt, who are at this moment descending in enormous quantities from the spawning beds to the sea. There are many views entertained about these fish. Some people regard the kelt as an interesting convalescent who must be carefully nursed and protected until he gets back to the sea. Other people regard him as nothing but a pest who eats all the food that should be valuable for the salmon parr, and who, if he cannot find sufficient of that food, eats the salmon parr itself. I think that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would do well to provide, at any rate for this season, that kelts may be taken and used for human food. There is no doubt that even if the kelt goes back to the sea he returns only in very small numbers. Last autumn out of thirty fish for which I and my friends were responsible, a microscopical examination showed that only one of the fish had ever been up the river before; so that one in thirty would be all you would have protected in that particular district by preventing the destruction of the kelt. If there is any truth in the statement that the kelt is a cannibal and eats the parr, every kelt saved may mean the destruction of a large number of young salmon when they most need protection. Between now and the middle of May these kelts will be pursuing their wearisome journey from the spawning beds to the sea, and if they are allowed to be made of use for food—as in many cases I know they can be—it would be a great addition to the food supply of the country, and it might even be of great advantage to the river.
  Finally I would suggest to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that they should consider carefully whether it is not possible to impose some strict limitation upon the size of fish taken, because while it is possible to catch and expose for sale immature fish, you are really depleting the rivers without getting any corresponding advantage. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for having added a few observations to those of Lord Desborough, but really the matter dealt with is of such great importance that if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries can see their way to appoint a small Commission, composed of people like the noble Lord who has asked the Question,
  422
  the Master of Christ's, Mr. Shipley, who is a scientific expert, and Viscount Grey, the late Foreign Secretary, to examine the whole question of the protection of fisheries from a practical and scientific standpoint, I am satisfied that the food supply will be enormously increased in the near future.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, as the noble Duke who represents the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in this House is prevented by indisposition from being present, he has asked me to give the reply which he would I have otherwise afforded to the House. The answer to the Question on the Paper is as follows. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have considered the question, and have decided to adopt the proposal of the Fresh Water Fish Committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, presides, that the close time for coarse freshwater fish be reduced by one month. As the noble Lord told the House, the statutory close season for coarse freshwater fish begins in the ordinary course on the 16th inst., and the Board have asked the Food Controller to issue an order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to make the powers conferred on the Board of Agriculture by the Sea Fishing (England and Wales) Order, 1917, dated 30 July of that year, applicable to freshwater fish. It is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty about this, though time is short, and it is hoped that the Food Controller will issue his Order in the course of the next day or so, when steps will immediately be taken to postpone the beginning of the close season for another month. As regards the further remarks made by Lord Desborough, and those made by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Buckmaster), I will take care that the Duke of Marlborough is fully informed of them, and I am sure he will give them his careful consideration. The noble and learned Lord alluded to the great damage done to fisheries by tar spraying on the roads. I see in the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Desborough on February 27, 1918, the following paragraph, which seems to bear on the subject, and perhaps I may be allowed to read it. It states—
  "Considerable ignorance exists as to the amount of coarse fish available in this country. As we pointed out in our interim Report on August 2 last, there are only 340 square miles of inland waters in England and Wales, as against 160,000 square miles in the North sea, and of these 340 square miles a very large proportion are

  423
  practically fishless owing to pollution, obstructions and other causes. If the whole of the coarse fish contained in our inland waters were captured, the effect on the food supply would be slight."
  I am afraid I can do nothing more than to undertake to see that the noble Duke in charge of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in this House is fully informed of what has been said here by the two noble Lords.
  LORD DRSBOROUGH: Should I be justified in making the noble Lord's statement public? They want to know to-morrow.
  LORD HYLTON: Certainly.

  BEER, SONDHEIMER & COMPANY.
  LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM had the following Question on the Paper—
  To ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. Whether the American branch of Messrs. Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, was blacklisted and subsequently released; and

  2. What conditions were imposed when this branch of the German firm was permitted to act for a time as agents of Minerals Separation American Syndicate.

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the other day, when drawing attention to the amazing ramifications of the great Frankfort agencies in the metal trades of this country, I made certain allegations as regards a corporation called the Minerals Separation North American Corporation. My information was based on statements in four Canadian newspapers which seemed to me at the time to be explicit and circumstantial. I believed that corporation to be a purely American concern, and that it had, like many other businesses in America, become entangled in the German net. I now find that those statements in the Canadian papers were incorrect, and that I was misled. The corporation was established in the State of Maryland in December, 1916, fifteen months ago. It has never had any connection with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, and I believe is quite incapable of any proceedings which could in the least degree favour the interests of the enemy. I wish, therefore, to withdraw the allegations which I then made, and I am very sorry I was thus misinformed.
  The cause of the misunderstanding, I believe, was this, that there was a predecessor of the Minerals Separation North American Corporation, which was entitled the Minerals Separation American Syndicate, and that that syndicate did in 1913 enter into a contract for ten years with Beer, Sondheimer and Company's American branch in New York. That contract gave the German firm the sole agency of the syndicate for, as I have said, a period of ten years. I believe that contract was afterwards broken or modified under instructions from the Board of Trade after the outbreak of war. Therefore I have put this Question in order to elicit the views of the Board of Trade as to the status of the American branch of Beer, Sondheimer and Company, and as to the conditions laid down by them for the general guidance of the Minerals Separation American Syndicate.
  It is extraordinarily difficult to get at any facts whatever with regard to the underground activities of these great Frankfort conspirators. I am now convinced that they had more than merely commercial designs. I believe their aim was to involve as many companies and persons in other countries as possible in German activities, in order to prepare a kind of barrage which could be set up when war, which I believe they knew to be impending, actually broke out; and at the present time I am sure they are busily engaged in fomenting a revolution of the Russian type in this country. I believe that if it were possible to get behind that barrage, much which is now quite dark would become clear.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, to the Question put on the Paper by the noble Lord, I will give what answer I can. The first part of my answer will be a short one, and the second rather long. In the first place the noble Lord asks whether the American branch of Messrs. Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort, was blacklisted and subsequently released. The information which His Majesty's Government have is to this effect, that Messrs. Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of New York, were included in the Statutory List—generally called, I think, the Black List—for the United States in July, 1916, and remained on that list until it was withdrawn on the entry of the United States into the war. That is the short answer to the first part of the Question.

  425
  As to the second part of the Question, the noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that the Minerals Separation American Syndicate (1913). Limited, which is a British-registered company, entered into an agreement in the month of September, 1913, with Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of Frankfort-on-Main and New York, under which the firm were appointed the sole agents of the syndicate for the transaction of all commercial affairs of the syndicate in the United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and the Philippine Islands. Beer, Sondheimer and Company have their principal office at Frankfort, and have a branch in America carried on by Messrs. Benno Elkan and Otto Frohnknecht, who were resident and domiciled in New York City. In October, 1914, the syndicate applied to the Committee on Trading with the Enemy for leave to enter into an agreement with Benno Elkan and Otto Frohnknecht under which the syndicate appointed them as the American branch of Beer, Sondheimer and Company, their sole and exclusive agents for the transaction of the commercial affairs of the syndicate in the places already mentioned, and Elkan and Frohnknecht undertook not to pay or to cause to be paid, directly or indirectly, any money, etc., arising from or in connection with their trading relationships with the syndicate to Beer, Sondheimer and Company of Frankfort, or any person resident in Germany or Austria, or to any one for the use of such person during the war, and to defer until after the war any commission or remuneration payable to them. At that time Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of New York, were not blacklisted, and no authority was required by the syndicate to enable them to enter into the proposed contract. They were informed by the Committee that there was no objection to their doing so.
  In June, 1916, the syndicate approached the Treasury again. In view of their difficulties in America they had been advised to form an American corporation to acquire from the syndicate the United States patents and the patents for Canada, Mexico, &c., and all their assets and other rights, but they were prejudiced by the agency agreement entered into with Benno Elkan and Otto Frohnknecht, the American corporation which was proposed being unwilling to submit to the obligation to deal with them. The syndicate, therefore, proposed to invite Elkan and Frohnknecht to cancel the agreement, in return
  426
  for a certain number of fully-paid shares in the company, and an option to subscribe at par for further shares. The shares in question were ultimately to be converted into shares in the American corporation, and no benefit was to accrue in respect of them for five years. The substitution of a moderate share-holding interest in the company—£17,500 out of £200,000—appeared to be preferable to the control resulting from the exclusive agency under the agreement of 1914, and, after reference to the Board of Trade, the syndicate's proposal was sanctioned, subject of course to the approval of the Capital Issues Committee of the issue of shares, if a new issue was involved.
  Meanwhile, the syndicate received from America the agreement entered into there for the formation of an American corporation for the acquisition of their undertaking and assets, as finally settled. This agreement necessitated a modification of the proposed agreement with Elkan and Frohnknecht, putting an end to their exclusive agency. The shares which they were to receive as consideration for cancellation were to be placed at their disposal at the end of the war instead of at the end of five years, and Elkan and Frohnknecht were to be the general agents in the countries which I have mentioned, although not the exclusive agents, of the American company. On the other hand, they released to the British company the money to which they were entitled in respect of commission, which was stated to amount to from £16,000 to £20,000. The company stated that it was absolutely essential to continue this provision as to the agency, Elkan and Frohnknecht absolutely refusing to assent to its cancellation, and they pointed out that a leading American counsel had advised in America that the American branch of Beer, Sondheimer and Company had no authority to enter into the new agreement or give the guarantee as to no enemy benefit, and that the original agency agreement of 1913 was still in existence and could be enforced against the syndicate in the American Courts. Meanwhile the name of Beer, Sondheimer and Company, of New York, had been added to the Statutory List, as I think I mentioned in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
  In all the circumstances the Treasury came to the conclusion that it was advisable in the national interest to authorise

  427
  the company to enter into the agreement of August 4, 1916, with Elkan and Frohnknecht—this agreement is on the company's file, and is public property—even though their right to be appointed agents remained, rather than to leave the company under their liability of the 1913 and 1914 agreements to employ them as sole and exclusive agents; and sanction was accordingly given, so far as the Acts and Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy were concerned. The Capital Issues Committee subsequently recommended the issue of fresh shares, out of which, inter alia, the shares to which Elkan and Frohnknecht were entitled were allotted to them. That is all the information that we have at present with regard to these people. If there is anything else that I can ascertain on the point, I shall be pleased to communicate it to the noble Lord.
  LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very full explanation.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  A Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Wednesday next at three o'clock.
  MARRIAGE HOURS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  [From Minutes of March 12.]
  NORTH CHESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to the second Sitting Day after the Recess at Easter.
  HAMILTON ESTATES.
  Petition for a Bill together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read and referred to Judges in Scotland.
  NITRATE RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    CHEPSTOW GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
    BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    E. Lindsay.

    E. Ancaster (Chairman).

    L. Fairfax of Cameron.

    L. Barrymore.

    L. Queenborough;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on the second Sitting day after the Recess at Easter next, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    Select Committee to meet on Thursday the 21st instant, at a quarter past Three o'clock. Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.
    House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.