Lords Sitting of 9 April 1919

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
D. H. EVANS AND COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the commons.

WAR GRAVES.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the Report by Sir Frederic Kenyon to the Imperial War Graves Commission, and to ask whether, within reasonable restrictions, some latitude cannot be allowed to relatives of deceased officers and soldiers as to the exact form of memorial to be placed on their graves.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is only after much hesitation, and under a. strong sense of duty, that I have resolved to place this Question on the Paper for the purpose of discovering what are really the intentions of those in authority in regard to this matter. Every one of your Lordships will recognise that this is an exceptionally solemn and sacred subject, and it will be my earnest endeavour to say nothing that will have the slightest chalice of giving offence or even, so far as I can avoid, of raising controversy. I have read with great care the Report which I hold in my hands. Those of your Lordships who will have seen it will have noticed that it is not a Parliamentary Paper. It is not presented to either House of Parliament; it is published by the Stationery Office. There is no list given of the Commission under whose authority it is published, nor is there the warrant of appointment, nor by whom they were appointed, nor to whom they are responsible; nor does it say what authority will ultimately exercise final control in this important matter. Probably in the course of the reply of the noble Viscount
224
opposite we shall be told some of these particulars.
But I am concerned with the Report, and I will quote the instructions given to Sir Frederic Kenyon by the Commission, whoever they were. He is directed—
"to consult representatives of the various churches and religious bodies on any religious questions involved; to report as to the desirability of forming an advisory committee from among those who have been consulted for the purpose of carrying out the proposals agreed upon.
And then there is this statement—
"The Commissioners are of opinion that no distinction should be made between officers and men lying in the same cemetery in the form or nature of the memorial."
I am quite certain that with regard to the last paragraph there will be absolute unanimity of opinion. When officers and men have died in the same noble cause, I think we shall all agree that, after death, they should be treated on an absolutely equal basis.
I will go further and say that so far as the Report is concerned it could not be in better taste, so far as it goes. On page 4 of the Report Sir Frederic Kenyon says—
"My endeavour has been to arrive at a result which will, so far as may be, satisfy the feelings of relatives and comrades of those who lie in these cemeteries; which will represent the soldierly spirit and discipline in which they fought and fell; which will typify the Army to which they belonged; which will give expression to those deeper emotions of regimental comradeship, of service to their Army their King, their country, and their God, which underlay (perhaps unconsciously) their sacrifice of themselves for the cause in which they fought, and which in ages to come will be a dignified memorial, worthy of the nation and of the men who gave their lives for it, in the lands of the Allies with whom, and for whom, they fought."
I will refer to the two alternatives suggestions which Sir Frederic Kenyon makes, and which will be found upon page 7 of the Report. He says—
"There are two main alternative methods which may be carried out. Either the individual graves may be undistinguished (except perhaps by an inconspicuous number) and the names of the dead will be commemorated on a single inscription, or each grave will have its own headstone, of uniform dimensions, on which the name of the dead will be carved with his rank, regiment, and date of death."
He professes great admiration for the second alternative, in which I think most of your Lordships will agree.
But the question I want to raise is why it is necessary that the headstones should be absolutely uniform. Why should it be in a form which will look like nothing else but a line of milestones. That seems to be a wholly inadequate memorial of the sacrifices which have been made and the feelings of those who are left behind. There are two paragraphs from a Memorial which, if it has not been presented, is shortly to be presented on this subject, and it states in far better language than I can use the feelings which are aroused by this decision. The Memorial says—
"We have been deeply wounded by the decision of the Commission that no crosses other than those engraved on the headstones, which time and weather will soon deface, are to be erected over the graves of those who gave their lives to preserve the lives and liberty of others. It was through the strength of the Cross that many of them were enabled to do so. It is only through the hope of the Cross that most of us are able to carry on the life from which all the sunshine seems to have gone, and to deny us the emblem of that strength and hope adds heavily to the burden of our sorrow."
There is not throughout this Report any indication of any real consideration of the religious side of the task laid upon Sir Frederic Kenyon. There is no indication how far the first instruction given to him has been carried out. He is told "to consult the representatives of the various churches and religious bodies on any religious question involved." There is no indication who was consulted; and one of the questions I desire to ask is, Whom representing any of the churches did Sir Frederic Kenyon consult? Did he consult the most rev. Primate? Did he consult the Church of Scotland? Has he been in any communication with the Roman Catholic Church and their authority? And there are other Churches in England and Scotland who have feelings, and who have just as much right to be consulted as those I have mentioned.
Even in the Report itself I think there is a condemnation of the suggestion that we should have this row of milestones, because on page 6 Sir Frederic Kenyon himself praises the artistic effect of some of the French military cemeteries. He says—
"The military cemeteries, whether French or English, with their orderly rows of crosses (the French ones bearing, in addition, a tricolour cocarde), have both dignity and inspiration."
Yet this example of what he himself has seen is wholly disregarded in Sir Frederic Kenyon's Report.
I want to make it quite clear that so far as I am concerned, and so far as any for whom I am entitled to speak are concerned, it is to be distinctly understood that we want no large interference with the scheme proposed. We agree cordially that there should be reasonable restrictions, especially as to the material or size of the memorials, whether they be crosses or memorials in any other form. There is no objection to the restriction as to the material or to the size, or even I will go so far as to say, if it will conciliate the Commission and Sir Frederic Kenyon, I would have no objection to having models of crosses, one or other of which must be chosen. But I want to say that to the last power that lies within us we shall oppose the idea of being prevented front having that sacred emblem at all upon the graves of those who have died on our behalf. I want it to be clearly understood that I do not attack the Report as a whole. There is a great sense of dignity in it, but there is a want of sympathetic understanding for the grave of a sacred as well as of an artistic kind as a memorial of the dead—the dead who have died in so great and so noble a cause, died with the very ideal of self-sacrifice so inseparably connected with the Cross of Calvary. That is all I have to say in regard to the Question as it appears on the Paper.
But since I put it on the Paper another matter has been brought to my attention of which I gave the noble Viscount who is to answer me private notice. My attention has been called to an agreement—one of the Treaty series—between the United Kingdom and France. It is a Parliamentary Paper, and I hold it in my hand. Apparently the Treaty was made on November 18, but was not published or presented to Parliament until the 19th of last month. It contains a most astonishing Order. Apparently, even if the relatives of any deceased officer desire to bring the remains to this country and if they get the leave of the French Government to do so, they are not to do it without the sanction of the British Government. What is the reason for that? Why are we to be controlled in this way? If the relatives make an agreement with the Government of the country where the sacred remains are lying—I do not say that I wish to do, and I do not speak perhaps for those who do—why should they be prevented from bringing them back by the action of our own Government? What have the Government to do with the matter

227
so long as they are not put to any expense? More than that, there is a clause in the Treaty which says that even if an application is made to the French Government it is to be referred to the British Commission before the French Government gives an answer. I say that is downright and absolute tyranny. The setting up and continuation of this form of bureaucratic control will, if it is not immediately remedied, mean that we shall run the risk of very serious resistance and even of rebellion. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the Question that has been put on the Paper by my noble friend refers to a very serious and a very sacred subject, and I will do my best to answer it in the spirit in which it has been set forth. I think I can to some extent assure my noble friend that he has done an injustice to the Imperial War Graves Commission in the references that he made to the scheme of headstones, tombstones, and cemeteries when he referred to them under the rather contemptuous name of "milestones." My noble friend asked what religious bodies had been consulted before any of these decisions were taken. The tone of my noble friend rather suggested that he considered none of these bodies had been consulted. I would assure him that these bodies were most carefully considered and consulted before any of the decisions were taken.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In what way?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am going to tell my noble friend in what way. I shall be glad indeed to give some of the names of those who were consulted before these decisions were taken. My noble friend asked me first as regards the Church of England. The most rev. Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury was carefully consulted and gave his views on these subjects, and as a matter of fact I believe that at the present time he has been good enough to allow certain models of crosses and memorials to be set up in Lambeth Palace for inspection. My noble friend also asked as regards the Roman Catholic community. Cardinal Bourne was consulted several times. I cannot go through the rest of the names, but different representatives of the Nonconformist bodies
228
gave their advice, as also did the Chief Rabbi on behalf of the Jewish community. Therefore I have to repudiate most strongly, on behalf of the Imperial War Graves Commission, the suggestion that religious bodies have not had a thorough opportunity of expressing their opinions
A further question was asked by my noble friend as to the constitution of the Commission. The War Graves Commission is something more than—shall I call it?—a British institution, because it was set up under the advice of the Imperial War Conference, where these matters were very fully discussed, and on the War Graves Commission sit not only British representatives of various classes and kinds, but also representatives of the great Dominions. The Imperial War Graves Commission was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1917. The chairman is the present Secretary of State for War. It is quite true to say, as my noble friend suggested that a great many of the recommendations in Sir Frederic Kenyon's Report have been adopted by that Commission. The Commission were generally unanimous that there should be equality of treatment as applied to these graves and cemeteries, but they have all through recognised that on this subject, affecting people so deeply, there must be considerable disparity and difference of view, and they have at all times been not only ready to listen but have listened most sympathetically to all suggestions that have come from all quarters, whether from people eminent or lowly, as to the way in which these cemeteries should be organised and the graves arranged.
I think it may assist your Lordships in forming an opinion on this subject if say something of what has actually been done at present by the Imperial War Graves Commission as regards the designs of tombs, headstones, and cemeteries. The decision of the kind of tomb to be set up has not been arrived at merely on the suggestions or opinions of the War Graves Commission itself. It has been arrived at after the most exhaustive consultation. I believe that I am right in saying that the officers and men at least of every regiment that has been fighting in France have had some opportunity of expressing their views. Perhaps I may detail to my noble friend what is the general design: a tombstone with the regimental badge at the top, and below the name and number of the man, and again below that an incised cross,

229
and below again an inscription. The inscription is left almost entirely to the suggestion of the relatives of the dead men. Of course, there must be some limitation as to the length and nature of that inscription, but, broadly speaking, suggestions are invited from the relatives, and those suggestions are fully carried out.
But not only have views and suggestions been collected from officers and men of these different regiments, but they have also been very carefully sifted by a body of most distinguished architects and artists of the day. Sir Frederic Kenyon himself, whose Report has been quoted, Cook immense trouble in travelling round and collecting views from all quarters which might be interested in the subject. The central memorials—because the idea is that these cemeteries should have a central memorial—have been designed, and some of them have been set up in plaster. I have photographs of the cemeteries, with the suggested memorials, with me. I shall be very glad to show them to noble Lords, and I cannot help thinking that when noble Lords have had the opportunity of studying those suggestions and designs they will feel that this Commission has paid far more attention and consideration to the feelings which my noble friend so well expressed than I think he was inclined to give them credit for.
There are at the present time three special cemeteries being set up at Tréport, Louvencourt, and Forceville, and those will be finished in a few months. The details of those cemeteries will appear in all the illustrated papers at the end of the week, showing the cemetery as it will be with the tombstones and with the central cross. And again an illustrated pamphlet will appear giving further details drawn up by Mr. Rudyard Kipling, who is one of the members of the Commission and who has taken a very active part in this subject.
I come to that most difficult question—noble Lords will feel how difficult it is—of deciding how far private individuals should have an opportunity of putting up their own special memorials. Notices have appeared in the papers of various distinguished persons who have expressed themselves very strongly on the importance of allowing private individuals to set up their own memorials. What I wish to place strongly before your Lordships is this—that the number of those who have expressed themselves quite satisfied with
230
these memorials is large indeed. There is one very well known and energetic lady who, I understand, has been collecting signatures from those who desire this freedom for setting up memorials, and I understand that after working very hard she has been able to collect really a very small number of signatures compared with the vast numbers of those who are interested, and who are satisfied with what is being done. It is quite possible that those interested, after they have had the opportunity of studying these memorials in the illustrated papers, may possibly have their feelings to some extent modified as to the desire to set up their own special memorial.
My noble friend has spoken about uniformity and sameness of design. I with many of your Lordships have had the opportunity at different times of seeing cemeteries where individuals were allowed to exercise their own taste, and in many cases the result has not been very fortunate. I really would like to put this before your Lordships—whether these cemeteries, designed by some of the greatest artists of the day, and carefully executed, would not be as sacred and as touching a memorial of those who have fallen as if you allowed individual feeling and taste to have full sway. But I wish to say that in all these matters the Imperial War Graves Commission does not desire to set up any rigid or hard-and-fast line, and is most ready to receive suggestions front those who are interested. I would, however, ask your Lordships to weigh that matter very carefully, and to consider the question as between uniformity and giving various persons the opportunity of using their own designs.
I think, further, that this ought to be considered. These graves unfortunately run into hundreds of thousands in France and the other countries where our soldiers have fallen. Very few of the relatives or parents of those who have fallen are in a position to place their own memorials and set up their own tombs, and I think it worth consideration whether there might not arise some feeling—I will not say of unfairness but of difference of treatment—among the many who are unable to set up their own tombs if the wealthier few are able to do what they like in these cemeteries. I only lay that before your Lordships, because one wishes in this matter to consult as far as possible the feeling and the taste of every one

231
There is the second point which was raised by my noble friend, who was good enough to give me notice on the subject, with regard to the removal of the remains of the dead to this country. I should like to say, first of all, that the French Government have behaved with great generosity in this matter. They have spent a very large sum of money—I cannot give the exact amount, but it is a very large sum—in purchasing from owners the land where the cemeteries are to be, and they have allowed this land to be used by our Government, and by the Dominions also, for ever to be retained as a cemetery. And their fine example has been followed by Belgium, by Italy, and by Greece. I understand that arrangements for those who have fallen in enemy countries will be the subject of discussion at the Peace Conference, and will then be settled.
At the present moment there are something like 1,000 cemeteries in France, and, following the policy which has been agreed upon, those who are lying in graves, numbering about 150,000, are being gathered together in the larger cemeteries. Perhaps it may interest your Lordships to know that something of the same policy is being followed by the Americans. I happened to be some two or three weeks ago with some American officers in the Argonne, where the graves are very scattered, and there I found that they were following the same policy of concentrating the remains of the dead in one big cemetery in the Argonne which will contain, I think, no fewer than 24,000 graves when it is finally established and built. My noble friend asks, Is it not tyranny if you do not allow people to carry the remains of their dead from France or Belgium to this country?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If the French Government allow it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is the point with which I am dealing. I am assuming, of course, that the French Government allow it. I pass by for the moment the fact that the removal of certain bodies from certain cemeteries might cause some lack of harmony in the whole of the cemetery; I deal only with the question on which I have already touched—namely, that it is only the better-to-do, the few really, who will have the opportunity or the power of removing the remains of their dead from these cemeteries to this country. And is there not some danger—I put the
232
matter frankly before your Lordships—that if this is permitted, the millions of relatives and friends who are not in a position to make that change will feel that some invidious distinction is being set up?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Certainly not.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I submit that consideration to your Lordships. Is there not some force, even some sentiment, on the other side, that it might be well, perhaps, that those who have fallen should lie together side by side in orderly array in these cemeteries—lie together in that land in which they have shed their blood and in which they have fallen. I do not know whether such answer as I have been able to give will satisfy my noble friend, but I most seriously and earnestly present these considerations to your Lordships. I can assure the House that all these matters have been most carefully and anxiously considered by the Imperial Graves Commission, not from any desire for tyranny nor from any desire to set up rules which others have to follow, but from a full consideration of the varied questions that arise and with a consideration for the feelings not only of the few but of the millions who are interested in these graves. I need hardly say, however, that any points which are brought forward and pressed by your Lordships in this discussion it will be my duty and my pleasure to put before the 'War Graves Commission, or before the Secretary of State, who is the official chairman of that Commission.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I do not rise to speak at length but merely to put a question to the noble Viscount in regard to the second part of his answer to the noble Lord who opened this discussion. The noble Viscount spoke of concentrating the remains. I will take a case out of my own knowledge, a near relative of mine, whose grave I visited twice in a village in France. An official letter came the other day stating that the place was too small to retain as a cemetery, and that the body must be removed. What is meant by "concentrating"? If what is really meant is simply digging up what is there and levelling the ground, and possibly—I do not know—moving something to some central cemetery, that is one thing. But if it means reverently moving

233
the remains (where there are remains) to a central cemetery, it makes a difference. I have not risen for the purpose of discussing the matter but to ask the noble Viscount to amplify his answer, if he can, by saying what was meant by the expression "concentration."
VISCOUNT PEEL: it is the latter part of the noble and learned Viscount's statement which is intended to be expressed by the word "concentration." The noble and learned Viscount will understand the reason for so doing. In the first place it is extremely difficult to care properly for these scattered graves, and every one is anxious to avoid the deplorable experiences through which I believe this nation went some years after the Crimean War when it was found that isolated graves—and some not isolated—were neglected. That is one of the great reasons for doing this. Besides, when the graves are collected in these larger cemeteries there will be an opportunity for memorials and so on, and chapels for those who wish to hold services for the dead, and for other arrangements which are only possible if the dead are gathered into these larger cemeteries.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My question was, What about the actual remains? Some people care about that very much, although I myself attach very little importance to it—"earth to earth and dust to dust." if "concentration" merely means that you take such memorial as there is and transfer it to a tombstone, leaving the remains themselves to moulder, that is a different thing from removing the remains.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was no doubt my fault, but I thought I had made it plain that I referred to the second part of the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion, that the actual remains are reverently, conveyed to the cemetery.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peel has explained how the Imperial War Graves Commission was constituted and whence it derived its authority, and he has shown that it has taken great pains to consult the leaders of the different Churches and has taken the religious side as well as the artistic into consideration. I may say that I have no personal interest in this
234
matter, because my son's grave is unknown; but I have very strong feelings on the subject—shared, as I know, by a great number of people—and I want, with such restraint of language as I can command, to impress on the Government through my noble friend the point of view as it strikes me.
Sir Frederic Kenyon has been my personal friend for nearly half a century, and I know that there is no man who could have approached this work with more reverent and patriotic feelings than he, or who could have given greater time, trouble, and thought to this extraordinarily difficult question. All of us will admit from the beginning, without reservation, that this matter requires organisation, and that the last thing we desire is that it should not be the subject of that kind of thought, of organisation, and, if necessary, of legislative interference, which the proceedings of this Commission indicate. But where I part company from my noble friend, where I differ from the ideas at the bottom of the Report of this Commission is this—and it really is fundamental. I say that these dead are not the property of the nation or of the regiment, but of the widow, of the father, and of the mother.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I say without the slightest hesitation that this is the view which every English family, of whatever station in life, has held, and it is the point of view from which they will consider this question. It is not the regiment, it is not the Government or the nation, still less is it a Public Department or Commission, that ought to have the last word in this matter, but the father, the mother, or the widow. Therefore I say that it is nothing less than sheer tyranny—a gross and wicked tyranny—to state that a cross may not be substituted for one of these tombstones if that is the wish of the widow, of the father, or of the mother. I do not suggest that there should be no restriction on the form of the memorial. I go to this length, that I would give some body a veto, so that the beauty, taste, and symmetry of a cemetery should not be marred by the lamentable want of taste or judgment even of a father or a mother or of 'a wife. But I do say that, with that power of restraint in the background, there should be a margin of choice for him or her who alone of the whole world really cares for these remains. That is my contention,

235
and the focus of that contention rests in the sign of the Cross. If a father or a wife says, "I am not content with the particular representation of the emblem which is found on the sealed pattern suggested by the Government," I say that they have the right, within the limits which I have suggested, to have their way, just as my noble friend has stated that in the matter of inscription they will always have their way, within necessary limits. I only ask him and the Government to extend to the actual tombstone or cross itself that same latitude of choice which they have already conceded in respect of the inscription.
Then I pass to the question of the remains. I quite agree that there are very few who wish to have the remains brought to this country but if they do, why should not they?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Why should it rest with a Government Department to say they should not? If the French Government said they could not or that they were not prepared to arrange it, I think it would be hard, but it would pass beyond the limits of our jurisdiction or right to criticise; but when it comes to a Government Department, in any shape or form, saying that no one in this country is to remove remains which to him or her are so utterly and eternally sacred, except with the leave of that Department or Commission, I say that is bureaucracy run mad, and I do not know who suggested to my noble friend the reasons on which he bases this. I do not believe they are his own. He said that if there was any differentiation it would usually be as between the richer and the poorer. As regards the headstone, I think he is quite wrong.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: As regards the removal of the bodies, he is probably right. But unless I am greatly mistaken and the whole of my knowledge of my poorer fellow-countrymen for more than fifty years is at fault, he will find that there are a great number of the very poorest families in this country who will save up money and go through great sacrifices in order to put up headstones to the brother or the son.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But the noble Viscount's criticism was that there might be jealousy and a sense of inequality and resentment at the invidious distinction.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think I said "jealousy." What I think I said was that there would be some feeling of invidious distinction.
TIIE EARL OF SELBORNE: That was perhaps my comment, and not the language which my noble friend used. I believe that to be utterly and wholly unfounded. In this matter of the treatment of our dead, I believe that there is a common sentiment among English people; that at any rate no barriers of class or opinion or creed exist. It is at the very bottom of the English character that the dead is the possession of the family, and that no one else has a right to say a word as to the disposal of the dead or the treatment. Our national character is entirely free from that kind of sense of inequality in such matters. I do not believe for one single moment that there is a family in this land, however humble, which would resent it if another family better endowed in this world's goods were able to remove to the home churchyard, to the family circle of the dead, the son or the father who had fallen. I do not believe for one moment in any such resentment. Therefore I say that the Government have no title to interfere between those who alone have a right to settle this matter and the French Government. If my noble friend pursues this matter I will go with him to the end in any pressure which may be put upon the Government to secure that those who are the only ones in the whole world who really care for these mortal remains should have a voice in these matters.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May we know who has been regarded as representative of the various religious bodies. Has the Church of Scotland been consulted?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid I have no information as to that, but I shall be very glad to inquire. I have no right to speak again except with the consent of the House, but I should like to be quite clear that I appreciate the precise argument of my noble friend Lord Selborne. He suggests that

237
people should be allowed to substitute a cross for the tombstone as drawn in that design. Of course, he knows that there is an incised cross on the tombstone, and the relatives are asked whether they prefer the cross to be there or not.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not want to be misunderstood. I think that more latitude should be allowed. There should be some power of veto in some public body, but, with that power of veto in the background, there should be considerable latitude, and I only mentioned the substitution of a cross as the case which struck me as most urgent.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether at a later stage the noble Earl would care to draw up in the form of a memorial the precise suggestions which he has in mind. It would be very helpful, and if put before the Commission would be very sympathetically considered. All I need say now is that I have listened very respectfully to the suggestions which have been made, and I have done my best to put the views as representative of the Commission. I will certainly represent to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War the strength and force of the feeling which has been shown in the speeches we have heard, and will lay the whole matter before him and see what can be done to meet the views of noble Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: If the noble Viscount would do that, he would be doing a very kind action. My son was killed in 1915, and he was the last man brought back to England. As Lord Lieutenant of the county I have had several letters from very poor people saying, "Oh! your son lies in Moulsoe churchyard; why cannot my husband (or my son) be brought back too?" It has been a very painful letter to have to write to say it cannot be done—that the, Government cannot allow it. What Lord Selborne said is true, that amongst the poor people it is a great hardship that their loved one is not with them. They feel that, I think, almost more than we do. And so if anything can be done, if they had a sort of consolation to think that if they could scrape money together it could be done, I am very certain in my own mind that it would be a very kind action on the part of the Government.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as one who, with many of your Lordships, lost a loved son, I feel that I must say a word in support of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I quite agree with all that was said by him. I feel most intensely that no Department has the right to dictate to Parliament. If it is a matter of such great importance, then I say that the Government ought to come to Parliament to find out what really is the wish of Parliament. We feel deeply for those who have fallen, whether they are our own sons or the sons of the very lowest classes in the country—that makes no difference at all. All have fought in the same cause; all have died in the same cause. They were all Englishmen, or Scotsmen, or Welshmen, or Irishmen, and we who survive them surely ought to try to carry out what is the will of the people, and especially of those who have lost dear ones. There can be no doubt whatever that a very large number of people in this country are most indignant to think that they are not permitted by a Department to erect what memorial they like over the remains of their lost ones.
Personally I feel that the subject is a most difficult one, and I recognise that the reason why we are told that we cannot do what we like originates from the feeling that all have died in the same cause and that there ought to be no distinction. Is there any reason, except-that of expense, why the Government should not say, "We are willing to place an ordinary cross on the grave of every soldier, rich or poor, at the expense of the country"? That is what I am asking. I know we cannot decide upon such a question in this House; but I believe that the House of Commons, if it were put before them, would by a vast majority pass money for the purpose of satisfying the feelings of the relatives of the large number who have died for their country. In this matter, the question of expense ought not to be considered. Consider the feelings of the people.
I am not pleading, my Lords, for your sons or for your brothers; I am pleading for the sons and brothers and husbands of the whole people of the British Isles. I most respectfully ask the Government if they do not think they could do that, and say that the Government are going to show that they, as representing the nation, realise what was done by the people of this country, and intend to do what the people

239
of this country wish in that regard, and that if the expense is more than a poor man can afford, they will supply the difference. Let every poor man have the choice of a Cross or some other memorial in reason, and then say, "What are you willing to subscribe towards that?" If the man is not able to subscribe, assist him in some proper proportion, thus showing that there is no difference between rich and poor, and that the whole thing is done for the sake of the country and the country alone.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, I hope I am right in interpreting what was said by my noble friend by way of reply as meaning that very favourable consideration will be given to what I think is the almost unanimous wish of the House—namely, that the desires of the friends should be consulted as regards the form of the memorial. That is a matter on which their wishes should predominate. Of course, there must be some form of control in order to see that nothing is done which would detract from the harmony of the place where so many gallant men repose. I am sure that if my noble friend looks into the matter himself it will all be done in the best possible fashion. Subject to that, surely the friends should be allowed to say that they prefer a Cross to the type of memorial which may have been decided upon by the Government. I recognise that the other matter, the removal of the remains to this country, is one that may present more difficulties. Every one would be most anxious, of course, to meet the desires of the family in a matter of that kind. At the same time, I recognise that there may be considerations which. require the most careful attention of those in charge of the matter. On the first point, as to the type of memorial, however, I cannot imagine any one having any doubt whatever.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has intimated his intention of taking a note of the observations which fall from your Lordships, and as I think it is desirable that he and those to whom he represents the matter should feel how unanimous the opinion is, I should like to say a word. I trust that this debate will get rid of the hateful idea of compulsory uniformity with regard to all these graves, and also of the feeling, which is beginning to be prevalent, that those who
240
are in charge of this matter have gone out of their way to discourage the prominence of the Cross. I am aware that there is to be a Cross, but the prominence of the Cross such as many of the relatives of those who are dead would desire, appears to be almost unnecessarily discouraged by those who have had the care of this matter hitherto.
By all means let there be control. By all means let extravagant or luxurious monuments be forbidden. Let the size and the taste and the wealth of them be under control. Let there be a certain number of patterns of the Cross, if you like, but let there be a liberty to those who are interested in the (lead to say if they would like a Cross upon the tomb of the dead person, notwithstanding what any bureaucracy may desire in the matter of compulsory uniformity.
With regard to the other matter, as to which there might be two classes of opinion, I think our true complaint is that the Government have taken into their hands what ought to be done by Parliament. Under the guise of a Treaty with the French they have prevented ordinary Englishmen from exercising their ordinary rights. No body but Parliament ought to settle that an Englishman should not, if the French Government consent, be able to remove the body of his dead from France to England. Under the guise of a Treaty with France the Government have apparently passed an Act of legislation. That, I think, is a matter which deserves the strongest protest from your Lordships' House.

THE CASEMENT BRIGADE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any of the men who joined the so-called Casement Brigade in Germany have been repatriated; and whether any action has been taken with regard to them, and if so, of what nature.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are a good many people who are anxious as to what has happened to the men who joined the Casement Brigade. The men who are particularly desirous to know how these men have been dealt with on repatriation are those who stood firm when unusual inducements were held out to them to desert their cause and join the

241
forces of the enemy. Some of the men yielded to these inducements; others did their duty and, "in spite of all temptations, to belong to other nations," remained Englishmen or Irishmen, as the case may be, fighting for the United Kingdom. My information is that the men who joined the Casement Brigade have been repatriated, and on repatriation a proportion of them at any rate have not been dealt with in any way at all. They have been treated exactly the same as the men who stood firm in the face of this unusual pressure, and the fact, if it is a fact, that these men have been treated in this way has called forth a considerable amount of feeling. I do not ask this Question in any spirit hostile to the Government, but I would assure the noble Viscount that if he could give us some answer as to the way in which these men have been dealt with he would be allaying a considerable feeling of injustice. I will be perfectly frank with him and tell him everything I have heard. It may be right, or not; but the idea is there.
My information is that of these men who have been repatriated some proportion of them, either three or five in number, have been arrested and dealt with, while of the remainder, to the number of about thirteen, no notice has been taken at all. I have also heard a rather far-fetched explanation of the conduct of these men, who did the very worst thing any soldier of the King can do—desert to the enemy in time of war. It has been suggested that they joined the Casement Brigade and deserted to the enemy with the idea of being sent into the firing line and possibly getting back to their own side in that rather roundabout and indirect manner. For my part I think that explanation is a thin, a very thin, one, and I am not putting it forward as a serious explanation. It has been suggested, however, and I think it right to say so. I hope the noble Viscount will answer the Question in the spirit in which I ask it, which is merely on behalf of those who did stand firm, and who think it is unfair that those who did not have not been marked out for any special treatment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has asked me a question with regard to those men who, he says, deserted to the enemy, and are supposed to have entered a body known as the Casement Brigade. I take note of the fact that there is much dissatisfaction amongst those in the camps
242
at the same time, who stood firm and did not yield to any sort of temptation. I am afraid, however, I must ask my noble friend to be content with the very shortest statement in reply. I really can only tell hint that the case of these men is now under the consideration of the Government, and the whole matter is being looked into very carefully. As the case is now, as it were,sub judice, my noble friend will I am sure see the impolicy of pressing his rather probing Question upon me any further.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might be allowed to add one question in sequel to what has fallen front the noble Viscount. The question which I desire to ask is whether the noble Viscount can inform us where these men are; whether they are, in fact, in custody, or under observation, and if, when required, they will be forthcoming; or whether they are in the enjoyment for the time being of complete liberty.
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are not, I understand, in custody, but it is quite well known where they are.

DOMINION AND COLONIAL TROOPS.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government whether there will be a march through London of Dominion and Colonial troops who have served in the war.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; it has been decided that there will be a triumphal march of Overseas troops through London. The details, which as my noble friend is aware are very complicated, are now being worked out, and I am not yet in a position to announce the precise date.
EARL STANHOPE: May I suggest to the noble Viscount that if there are to be any more of these triumphal marches they should occasionally consist of complete units. What I mean is this—that instead of battalions being represented by five hundred or six hundred men, the battalion should march as it marches in France with all its transport. It would teach the people of London what a "unit" actually means in war, and the march now suggested is an opportunity which should not be missed for allowing a battalion to march with its Lewis guns, its cookers, transport,

243
and the whole of its paraphernalia, and occasionally in different order—that is, one battalion in "marching order," and another in "battle order," which I am sure would interest those who witnessed such a procession and would teach them something as to what an Army really is.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I hope that the noble Viscount will not lose any time in arranging this triumphal march, because, as he is well aware, day by day thousands of Australians and Canadians are returning to their homes, and they will be deprived of the tribute which Englishmen would wish to have the opportunity of paying them. I should like also to impress upon my noble friend the great importance in this triumphal march, or in some march at an early date, of including representatives of the troops that have come from the Crown Colonies—many of them coloured troops from the West Indies—in order that they, too, should have a tribute from this country for the sacrifices they have made. We know that some Crown Colonies cannot be represented. There are those from West Africa who have fought in West Africa and also in East Africa. They cannot be represented here, though their memory will be represented. But I hope that there will be full representation of Crown Colony troops as well as those from our self-governing Dominions.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Government are fully aware of the difficulty about delays, to which the noble Viscount alluded. He may have noted that I used the word "overseas troops," which has a rather wide application. I think that the suggestion made by the noble Earl was a very interesting one.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Expenses of local elections.
1. Subsection (1) of section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, and subsection (1) of section nine of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890 (which prescribe the maximum amount of the expenses of candidates), shall have effect, both as originally enacted and as applied by any other Act, as though "twopence for each elector" were substituted for "threepence for each elector"
Provided that no person shall be liable to any penalty or disability in respect of expenditure in excess of the amount permitted under the said Acts as amended by this Act, but not in excess of the amount which would have been permitted if this Act had not been passed, if the excess was due to expenses bona fide incurred or for which he had made himself liable before the passing of this Act, which would not leave been incurred or for which he would not have made himself liable if this Act had been in operation; and any person entitled to apply for relief under section twenty of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, or section twenty four of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890, may apply for relief on the ground that the excess was clue to such cause, and those sections shall have effect accordingly
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD) moved to omit from Clause 1 the whole of the proviso. The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out all the words from "elector" to the end of the clause, requires perhaps a word of reminder and of explanation. As the Bill was originally drafted it was intended to affect the then pending elections, and the words that I now propose to omit were necessary if that view were to be given effect to. But, as your Lordships may remember, very strong reasons were addressed to me when the Second Reading of this Bill was under consideration pointing to the inconvenience and even the unfairness of the position, or of any attempt to apply it to the then pending elections. I undertook then when the matter came before your Lordships on the Committee stage I would move the omission of these words. The elections took place under normal circumstances, and I move this Amendment in pursuance of the pledge that I then gave.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out from ("elector") to the end of the clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

LAND DUTIES AND HOUSING.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the opinion expressed in the Report of the Committee on Building Construction in connection with the Provision of Dwellings for the Working Classes, that a very large proportion of working-class housing will depend upon private enterprise, and the statement in paragraph 24 of the Report that—
"there was a consensus of opinion amongst the builders and land developers that the land duties in the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, had seriously retarded the carrying on of their business. The evidence given was that these duties had arrested the development of building estates, led to the diminution or withdrawal of financial facilities, and retarded investment in house property. The taxation of builders' profits, as decided by the Lumsden judgment, was considered by the builders to be an injustice, and, in their opinion, has seriously prejudiced the trade of house building,"
they will consider the desirability of now encouraging private enterprise by repealing or amending that part of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, which has so greatly contributed to the present shortage of houses.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I have to tell him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this question at the moment under his consideration. His opinion is that as regards general policy it is not possible at present to add anything to the answer which he gave in the House of Commons on March 27. I do not know whether my noble friend looked at the debates in the House of Commons on that day, and in case he did not do so I will quote the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a very similar question to that put by my noble friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
"The whole subject of the land values duties and the effect upon them of different decisions given in the Courts requires, and will receive, the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. But for this examination more time is needed than I have up to the present been able to devote to it."
In the meantime, in accordance with the pledge given by the Prime Minister, dating back, if I remember aright, to the year 1914, duty is not being claimed in cases which would have been relieved by the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation, as my noble friend I dare say remembers, was legislation which the Govern
246
ment of the day intended to bring in after judgment had been given in the Lumsden case. The Chancellor's opinion is that as regards general policy it is not possible to acid anything to the answer he gave in the House of Commons on March 27, except to say that the subject is now actually being considered by the Government, and he deprecated a general discussion until they are in a position to make a statement.
I dare say many of your Lordships who are interested in this matter have studied the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary for Scotland to consider questions of building construction in connection with the provision of dwellings for the working classes in England, Wales, and Scotland, and to report upon methods of securing economy and despatch in the provision of such dwellings. That is the Report referred to by my noble friend in his Question. My noble friend quite correctly quoted an extract from page 7 of that Report, to the effect that there was a consensus of opinion amongst builders and land developers that the land duties in the Finance Act, 1910, had seriously retarded the carrying on of their business, and that the evidence given was that these duties had arrested the development of building estates and led to the diminution or withdrawal of financial facilities and retarded investments in house property, and that the taxation of builders' profits, as decided by the Lumsden judgment, was considered by the builders to be an injustice and in their opinion had seriously prejudiced the trade of house building. But my noble friend did not go on to quote the whole of that paragraph, the concluding passage of which is as follows—
"We" [the Commissioners]" have not considered it within the scope of our reference to examine the ground of these complaints or the details of the land duties, or to express an opinion upon the subject., but we content ourselves with communicating what is manifestly the view of the building trade as far as it was expressed by the witnesses we examined."
The position at the present moment as regards the Lumsden judgment is that after the decision of the House of Lords Mr. Lloyd George agreed to introduce legislation which would have had the effect of excluding, in the case of land which had been built upon, elements other than continuing increases in site value from the scope of the charge. A provision to this effect, as my noble friend I dare say

247
remembers, was inserted in the Revenue Bills of 1913–14, but failed to reach the Statute Book. It was then proposed to effect the object by the introduction of a one-clause Bill, but the war intervened and the Bill was not introduced. Mr. Lloyd George, however, promised in the autumn of 1914 that cases which would have been covered by the proposed clause should be held in suspense, and in May, 1916, Mr. McKenna agreed that all such cases, whether occurring before or after May 7, 1913, should be held in abeyance. Since that date no duty has been collected in respect of the so-called Lumsden cases. There the matter rests at present. I am sorry that I have not been able to give an answer that would be altogether satisfactory to my noble friend, but what I have stated to-day is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The effect of that statement is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted in the House of Commons that there is a case for very serious consideration, and he hopes to deal with it in the coming Budget?
LORD HYLTON: I do not know that he used the words "in the coming Budget."
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his answer, and I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government are giving consideration to this matter. I would only express the hope that, in view of the great importance of encouraging private enterprise in building, there will be no unnecessary delay in arriving at a decision.
LORD ST. LEVAN: May I ask whether, in view of the opinion expressed in the Report that a very large proportion of working class housing will depend upon private enterprise, His Majesty's Government expect that a large number of houses will be built by private enterprise in the future, or whether they think it will be restricted to municipal and other authorities.
LORD HYLTON: I am afraid I must ask my noble friend to give notice of that question.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of April 8.]
BECCLES WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: Committee to meet forthwith.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lords following be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:

E. Malmesbury;

L. Oranmore and Browne;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
SOUTH SHIELDS GAS BILL.
STOURPORT GAS BILL. [H.L]
MANSFIELD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BECCLES WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BRITON FERRY BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
WEST SOMERSET MINERAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
STOCKTON-ON-TEES 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. Strafford,

L. Monson,

L. Blythswood,

L. Loch,

L. Queenborough (Chairman);

249
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 13th of May 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.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NEWARK GAS BILL. [H.L.]
PEMBROKE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NUNEATON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ST. JUST (FALMOUTH) OCEAN WHARVES AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
THAMES OCEAN-WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Muir Mackenzie be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) and that the Lord Muir Mackenzie be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.