Lords Sitting of 25 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CAMPS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
THE KING EDWARD THE SEVENTH WELSH NATIONAL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
SMETHWICK OLDBURY ROWLEY REGIS AND TIPTON TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, as your Lordships will see, I have a Motion on the Paper which is not in the ordinary form that we sometimes use before a Recess. I have put it down in the exact form in which it was moved in your Lordships' House by the late Lord Curzon in November, 1920, to give power to the Lord Chancellor or, in his absence, the Chairman of Committees,
216
after consultation with the Government, to call your Lordships together if necessary, in the event of an adjournment for more than two days. This will probably be to the convenience of your Lordships, particularly later on, when judicial sittings come to an end and the House might adjourn from Thursday to Tuesday. The Government might have a statement to make, or something might happen when your Lordships might desire to be called together earlier. I have put down the Motion in this way, and I hope it will receive the approval of your Lordships.
Moved to resolve, That whenever during the present Session of Parliament the House stands adjourned for more than two days, and it appears to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor (or if the Lord Chancellor is absent, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chairman of Committees after consultation with His Majesty's Government), that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during such adjournment, the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, may give notice to the Peers that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such Notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Military Training Bill through its remaining stages.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Classes of persons liable to be registered and called up for military training.
(3) The Minister, if satisfied that there is good cause for so doing, may permit any person to be registered in the Military Training Register before he attains the age of twenty years, or may permit any person registered in that Register, on application made by him within the prescribed period after being so registered, to postpone his liability to be called up for military training, and in the latter case, the period of one year for which he is liable to be so called up shall begin with the date to which his liability is postponed instead of the date on which he was so registered; and where application for such permission is made to the Minister on grounds of hardship, the Minister shall, unless he grants the permission, refer the application to a Military Training (Hardship) Committee constituted under Part I of the Schedule to this Act.
3.8 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (3), after "registered," where that word last occurs, to insert "or may permit any person so registered to be exempt on the ground of his industrial skill from his liability to be called up for military training." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret very much having to return to the charge, but I was so seriously dissatisfied with the reply that the Government gave yesterday to this important Amendment that I feel sure it should receive a little further consideration. I only hope that, on reflection, the members of the Government may have seen fit to modify their opinion as expressed yesterday. I should like to say that I am not moving this Amendment in any Party spirit whatever. It is not a Party matter at all. I am moving it simply because I happen to have had painful, prolonged, and first-hand experience of the mistake which would be committed if the Bill passed in its present form.
I shall not waste your Lordships' time by restating the case. Briefly, it is that, as the Bill stands, every man between the ages of twenty and twenty-one will be required to enrol and will be called up for service unless a case of hardship or conscientious objection is made out. That will mean that large numbers of highly skilled men in most critical occupations, just at the end of their apprenticeships, when their skill is almost at its highest point, will be called up. There is no escape from it. As the Bill stands that will be so. It is really impossible to
218
exaggerate the foolishness of these proceedings, and I use the term with great respect. It will mean that in some of our most critical establishments from the drawing offices and the tool rooms and other places young men will be called up whom you will wish you had never called up. It will prejudice the output of munitions, and often in the most critical way lead to wholesale delays. It will be an unmitigated nuisance, and I am perfectly certain that people who will make the greatest outcry about it will not be the men themselves but the employers who have lost their skilled men and will have their plans of work dislocated. Therefore I move that, in addition to what is provided in the Bill, it should be lawful for the Minister to permit any person to be exempt on the ground of his industrial skill from liability to be called up for military training.
The Minister may exercise this power within as narrow limits as he chooses, but at the present time he cannot exercise such an option at all and refrain from requiring a person to be registered if that person has such skill that in the interests of national defence he should really stay where he is. The Amendment explains itself and I do not think I need go further into it. I only want to say again that it is not moved in any Party spirit; it is moved because I am sure this would be a sensible thing to do. As I say, it can be done on as strictly limited a scale as the Minister likes, but he ought to have the power to do it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 55, after ("registered") insert ("or may permit any person so registered to be exempt on the ground of his industrial skill from his liability to be called up for military training").—(Lord Addison.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I would like to say one or two words on this matter. I do not quite understand the working of the Bill in certain cases, and what I am going to put to your Lordships is perhaps rather more limited than the cases which my noble friend Lord Addison has mentioned. I should like to put the case of doctors. It is quite inconceivable that a doctor can be employed in the Army in any capacity other than that of an officer of the R.A.M.C., but in war time he may, of course, be also employed to look after the civil population or take part in other activities. He

219
will, however, always be employed as a doctor, and in no other capacity, whether as an officer of the Army or as a civilian. Now it seems to me that the young medical student of twenty or twenty-one doing this six months training in the Army will really be—I do not say wasting his time, because I am sure it will do him a lot of good and it will be of advantage to him if he happens to be an officer later in the Army to have familiarity with Army conditions, but I think that if he is taken away from his training as a doctor for so long as six months it will really be contrary to the public interest, because we want him as a doctor and not as a soldier.
That being the case, it seems to me that the medical student is of the same category as the cadet at Woolwich or Sandhurst. He is working for his profession, which will be a military or semi-military profession in time of war, just as the cadet at Woolwich or Sandhurst is working for his profession, and it seems to me that the medical student should be treated in the same way, or in a somewhat similar way, as the cadet. I believe there are means by which this can be done, and I want to ask my noble friend if I am correct. The medical student might serve perhaps for a month, or two months, doing military training. I do not think that would hamper him very much, because he then might go back to his hospital or even to a military hospital, which would perhaps teach him more than he might learn if attached to the R.A.M.C. Reserve; or he might do other training if required. I do think that there should be some means by which a doctor can do as I have suggested. I take the case of a doctor because it is the most obvious one; but of course there are other cases in regard to which the Minister should have some discretion to allow these people to get on with learning the business in which they will be absolutely indispensable in war time, thereby really training themselves more efficiently and more satisfactorily than would be the case if they spent the whole of their training time in camp.
There is another point that I should like to mention. A man who is in a reserved occupation cannot join the Territorials because he will be turned down when he goes to join a Territorial unit. He will be told that he is not allowed to join
220
because he is in a reserved occupation. I am inclined to think that it would be of advantage that such persons should be allowed to join the Territorials because that would not occupy so much of their time. They would be able to go on with their training while they were serving in their ordinary business and should make themselves efficient. Although they would not be in what I might call a special reserved occupation I think it is a little hard that they should be absolutely barred from joining the Territorial Army when other people are not so barred. I think, however, that really does not arise, because the reserved occupations can always be altered by administrative means, but in the case of doctors and others—I only take doctors as a special example because they are so obvious—there ought to be some means by which the Minister or Secretary of State can by regulation deal with a case of that kind.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I make an appeal to the Government representative who is dealing with this point, as raised and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Addison? The argument I am going to use is not a hypothetical argument; it comes from my own experience at the War Office twenty-five years ago. The very point which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has made fits in with what I saw there at that time, and I cannot understand why the Master-General of Ordnance has not pointed out to the draftsman of this Bill that there is a blot here which ought to be wiped out. In the Bill as it stands there is an unforeseen possibility of mischief which ought to have been provided against. A man of twenty who is nearly out of his apprenticeship is very valuable as a skilled worker in helping to make munitions. I suggest that these men working upon jigs and gauges are irreplaceable; yet you are going to draw these men out from their occupations. I hope that something will be done to alter this Bill in that respect as a result of the suggestions now made.
It would be a great mistake to draw these men away from their occupations. The men themselves are eager to fight, but if you draw them out now and if there should, unfortunately, be war, you would be bound to take steps to get them back again. You must get them back because you cannot do without them. The

221
Master-General of Ordnance will tell you so. Why not prevent the trouble at the outset? Why not stop the creation of trouble? It will have to be put right eventually by these men being brought back. Why not now put in the Bill something to prevent that? I do not confine myself to the words proposed by Lord Addison, but at any rate I suggest that the Master-General of Ordnance should be consulted. There must be on the files of the Contracts Department of the War Office information which would show the person who drafts this Bill, and the Minister in charge of the Bill, that there is a difficulty to be faced and one that ought to be faced before this Bill becomes law.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, we appreciate very much on this side of the House the spirit in which the noble Lord moved this Amendment. We are quite aware that he did so in no partisan spirit. The effect of this Amendment would be that the Minister would be able to give a permanent exemption from military training to a person upon the ground of his industrial skill. My noble friend has in mind the importance to industry of a number of young men between the ages of twenty and twenty-one. We heard a good deal on the Committee stage, and we have heard a certain amount this afternoon, on the question of the position of apprentices. We should, I think, remember that the Bill makes provision for dealing with apprentices and those provisions enable the Minister to make regulations to secure the adjustment of contracts of service or apprenticeship.
LORD ADDISON: Where is that?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is in Clause 7 (3). But apart from that clause it is open to an apprentice, if he wishes, to apply for postponement under Clause 1 (3). It should be remembered that this age group which will be called up for training is a very young age group, and although the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, and my noble friend opposite have stressed the skill to which these young men have attained, they are not, at that age, fully skilled tradesmen. They are either at a late stage of apprenticeship or are in what is known as the improver stage. The Government have given very careful consideration indeed to this question, and they do not feel justified in taking power to exempt men of this age
222
group from their military training. They hope and believe, however, that most of these men will have their training upon some of the large number of technical jobs, which now exist in the Army.
As I said on the Committee stage, and as I would again remind your Lordships, the Army requires large numbers of skilled tradesmen, and it is the intention, as far as possible, to train young men between the ages of twenty and twenty-one, who have technical qualifications of the type now under discussion, in various technical units—for example, in the Royal Engineers, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Signals. I believe, also, there are many jobs of a mechanical kind in the non-technical units. As regards the importance of avoiding mistakes which were made in the early days of the last War, the Government are determined to avoid the mistake of taking highly skilled men out of industry and then afterwards having to comb the Services, in many cases unsuccessfully, to try to get them back. Evidence of the Government's determination in that respect is to be found in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. The Government will continue to bear in mind the needs of industry in the event of war, and the great necessity for preserving a proper balance in man power, but they are convinced that they would not be justified in applying an industrial discrimination to men of this young age group.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would the noble Earl answer my question?
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The question he asked is a very important one. I think that question can be answered and my noble friend in charge of the Bill tells me that he will deal with it on Third Reading.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am quite sure that in fact the question put by the noble Earl cannot be answered. There is no ground for exempting a medical student, who perhaps would be entitled to take his qualifying examination a month after reaching the age of twenty-one. There is nothing to prevent his being called up. It cannot be done by regulation, with great respect to what the noble Earl may be going to say on Third Reading. He has got to be called up as the Bill stands. The noble Earl's reference to Clause 7 (3) does not in any way reply

223
to my point. It gives the Minister power to vary contracts of apprenticeship and so forth. That power will only require to be exercised if the man is called up. If the man is left at his bench, doing his ordinary job, there is no need to exercise the powers given in Clause 7 (3). It does not help us out a bit. The noble Earl suggests that these young men will find some useful job in various units of the Army. I know that quite well, but I also know that there will be an outcry about the shortage of scientific instruments, gun sights and other things, on which these men would be employed. The point is, what is the most useful way of utilising their skill in the national interest? I am sure that any man who answers faithfully will tell you that if he is taken from his job and spends six months away from it, it will be several months afterwards before he recovers his skill. The noble Earl has done his best to bolster up a bad case, but I hope the House will express an opinion on it.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I be allowed to say a few words on this matter? The Government had to decide,
Clause 3:
Conscientious objectors.
(12) The regulations made under this Act regulating the procedure of such tribunals as aforesaid shall make provision for the Appellate Tribunal to sit in two divisions, of which one shall sit for Scotland, and shall empower the tribunals to take evidence on oath, and shall make provision as to the representation of parties to proceedings before
as a question of principle, whether they were going to allow a large number of people to escape from doing service because of their various qualifications, or whether they were going to make, as far as possible, no exceptions at all. We choose the latter alternative. In the short debate this afternoon, it has become obvious that once you begin to open the door you will have to open it very wide indeed. The noble Lord talked about industrial skill, and at once the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, talked about medical students. I was only surprised that my noble friend the Earl of Radnor, or some other noble Lord interested in agriculture, did not say that men specially skilled in work on the land ought to be excluded. So you go on and go on. The only thing the Government could do was to say that, provided he was a British subject, living in this country, every man should serve under the terms of the Bill unless there was a conscientious objection or some medical reason why he should not do so.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 5; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Snell, L.

Addison, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bridport, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Zetland, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Holden, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Trenchard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Cavan, E.

Rennell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Addington, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Birdwood, L.

Howe, E

Blythswood, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Chatfield, L.

Teynham, L.

Midleton, E.

Denman, L.

Wolverton, L.

Munster, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanhope, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

the tribunals which shall include the right to appear either in person or by counsel or a solicitor or by a representative of any trade union to which they belong.
3.36 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, at the end of subsection (12), to insert "or by any person who satisfies such a tribunal that he is a relative or personal friend of the party he proposes to represent." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved in another

225
form yesterday and which received friendly support from the Lord Chancellor. I have put it down in an amended form which I hope will be acceptable to the Government. I moved yesterday simply to acid at the end "or by a friend," but I have been given to understand that there are some people going about, or likely to be going about, who might perhaps be described as "professional" friends. We do not want them. This is a bona-fide intention that a person who is poor and unfamiliar with proceedings shall be able to get a real friend—a personal friend or a relative—to state his case for him, and not anybody who happens to go about and offer to be a friend to anybody. I have therefore altered the words, under advice, to try to meet that point, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment in this modified form.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 44, at end insert ("or by any person who satisfies such a tribunal that he is a relative or personal friend of the party he proposes to represent").—(Lord Addison.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the Government are very glad to accept this Amendment, and I am pleased to see that the noble Lord has amended it, for the reasons he has stated to the House, and made quite clear that the friend is to be a personal friend. Some people were suggesting another adjective.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Discharge of prisoners claiming to be conscientious objectors.
14.—(1) If any person undergoing a term of imprisonment of six months or any greater punishment imposed on him by a Court-Martial in respect of an offence committed while he was undergoing a special course of training which he was required to undergo by virtue of subsection (1) of Section six of this Act, claims that the offence was committed by reason of his conscientiously objecting to undergoing military training or to obeying any order in respect of which the offence was committed, then he may apply in the prescribed manner to have his case considered by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and that tribunal shall, whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid, have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him, but if the tribunal finds that the said offence was not committed by reason of such a conscientious objection it may order
226
him to undergo immediately after his discharge from the Army Reserve the like training and subject to the like conditions as if he had been a person ordered to comply with the requirements of subsection (8) of Section three of this Act, so however that the period for which he is required to undergo such training shall be specified in the order and shall not exceed six months from the date of his discharge from the Army Reserve.
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "three months" for "six months" where those words first occur. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment in manuscript form, of which notice has been given to, I think, everybody who is interested in the matter. It is designed to meet a point which was raised last night but which was not the subject of an Amendment before your Lordships and with which, perhaps, I was unable to deal satisfactorily at the time because I had no notice that it was to be raised. My noble friend Viscount Samuel desired, as I understood, that the preliminary words in the clause should be entirely omitted. I may have been wrong in taking that view, and I am not quite sure now whether he wanted to go as far as that. The Government took the view that some such words were necessary, for a reason which I think I can explain. But I am conscious, and I may say I was conscious then, that what I said did not quite cover the question as to the length of the sentence which had to be imposed before the person in question was given a right on alleged conscientious grounds to apply to the tribunal.
The main object of the clause was, I think, to prevent a cat-and-mouse arrangement of the sort which was found so unsatisfactory and was objected to so strongly during the last War. We are dealing with the case of a person who may or may not have claimed to be exempt from military service upon conscientious grounds. We have, however, to remember that there may be a case of a person who either has been decided against, having raised the contention of his conscientious scruples, or has never raised the contention at all; and it is certainly, I think, desirable that it should not be possible for people to complain of an order made while a man is serving as a member of His Majesty's Forces under the Act and raise a point of conscience

227
which may have no real foundation at all. If you have no limit as to the length of the sentence it would be open, I suppose, to anybody who at the moment might have lost his temper with the drill sergeant or who objected to the conditions of his service, to claim—since there is no condition to the claim apart from the one found in the first two lines of the section—that his case should go before the tribunal. It might cause very great inconvenience and I venture to think it would be subversive of discipline. On the other hand, the Government gave a pledge that they would introduce a clause of this kind and the form in which it has been introduced is of course a matter for consideration.
I am afraid that yesterday I rather nettled the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, by a phrase of mine after certain interchanges of Parliamentary observations. I regret that he should have thought I was asserting that he was of the nature of a conscientious objector. I am glad to think that if he were a few years younger than he now is it might be taken for granted that he would not be a conscientious objector at all. I hope he will be satisfied with the Amendment made after very careful examination. It is that six months shall be changed to three months in future. It will allow anybody who has been convicted for a period of three months or more to claim that his case should go before the Appellate Tribunal. I will add this, which is I think an observation which I made before, that if you look at the clause you will see that the tribunal is not intended to be bound to make a statement that the man has acted from conscientious objection. The tribunal shall,
"whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid, have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him."
With some knowledge of how tribunals work I think that, having that before them, they probably will not come to a definite conclusion in any ordinary case that, where the matter has been before a tribunal before, that tribunal was wrong.
The other matter has already been discussed on an Amendment by Lord Addison, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say now, in order not to take
228
up your time hereafter, that I have carefully considered, with the assistance of competent advice on the subject, whether I was right yesterday in saying that the form of the clause does not in the least interfere with the power of the Secretary of State to discharge the residue of the sentence of the prisoner in question if he is satisfied that that is the right course. Accordingly, there is nothing here in lines 34, 35 and 36 on page 20 that requires any such Amendment as Lord Addison suggested last night. In other words the Secretary of State can discharge the man from the Service after he has served the remainder of his sentence. Perhaps I might also say that I have considered the question which Lord Samuel raised as to the meaning of a man being "found guilty." I am afraid that is in the other Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is in this Bill, too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am advised that the view which I expressed that the phrase in question referred to a conviction by a civil court was correct. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the trouble which he has taken over this question, and for moving the Amendment to meet the point which I raised, and also for having dealt with another point and given a ruling thereon which is in accordance with what I had expected would be the ruling given. This provision now in the Bill was not there when the Bill was introduced, but it was moved in yesterday, and I ventured in an humble and inquiring spirit to ask why it was there was this limitation, that a punishment of six months must have been inflicted upon a man before he could exercise any right of appealing for discharge from the Army. On the face of it, it would have seemed right either that the decision of the tribunal that he was not a conscientious objector before entering the Army should hold, and if he refused to obey orders he should be punished and that should be the end of it, or else, if he were given the opportunity of having the matter once more reviewed, that it should be a wide opportunity and not limited to persons

229
who had been sentenced to six months imprisonment.
I was somewhat astonished to have evoked from the noble and learned Lord a suggestion that I must be one of those who thought that the utmost consideration should be paid to the conscientious objector, and not so much to the serving soldier. That has never been my point of view, and I thought I had made that clear in the observations which I addressed to the House on the Second Reading of this Bill. I am sorry that there should be any conscientious objectors. I do not myself sympathise with their point of view at all; but if there are conscientious objectors, I agree with the Government that provision has to be made to meet that case, otherwise circumstances arise which are very much to be regretted. Therefore, referring to an observation that has just fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if the emergency should take place, and conscription were to be applied to people in the late sixties, I certainly should not invoke the conscientious objector's clause, though I should not find myself in the same regiment as the Lord Chancellor, as he would certainly be regarded as belonging to a key occupation.
Since this discussion took place yesterday, I have looked up the debate on this point that was held in another place, and there I find that when a similar clause was first moved from the Labour Benches, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government refused it, and said the Government thought this was a matter to be decided by the tribunals who considered the application of a man to be regarded as a conscientious objector, and that when that had once been decided, the matter was ended. However, as the debate went on it appeared that it was a case to be considered, and those who have read that debate must have been greatly struck, as the House of Commons was struck, by the speech of another Labour Member, Mr. Creech Jones, who recounted his own experiences. He had been adjudged by the local tribunal to be a conscientious objector, but the Appeal Tribunal held that he was not, and he was consequently sent into the Army. Being a man of extremely strong convictions and great tenacity, he refused to obey military authority, was court-martialled and was sentenced to six months imprisonment, which he served. On release
230
he was sent back to the Army, again refused to obey orders, again was court-martialled, and was then sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, which he served. On his release from the second term, he was again sent back to the Army, again refused, was again court-martialled and was sentenced to two years. And altogether, he told the House, he had been in prison for about three and a half years.
In those circumstances, it became clear that there was a case to be met, and consequently a promise was given that, when the Bill came to your Lordships' House, the Government would take steps to meet it, and that was why this clause was put down. I think that your Lordships will agree that, in the circumstances, it is a right and proper provision. But then arose the question which I put: Why should this apply only to people who have been sentenced to six months, and to that I think the answer might have been given in the terms that were used in the debate in the House of Commons. It was there stated that if there was no limitation at all a man who was not a genuine conscientious objector, but who got into some trouble and found himself uncomfortable in the Army, and refused to obey some military order of a trivial kind, might run the risk of having to serve a short term of confinement to barracks, or some other punishment, and then take the chance of going back to be adjudged as a conscientious objector, and perhaps be discharged from the Army altogether—that what was intended to be a just and proper provision might be misused by contumacious and perverse people to commit trivial offences and then put this machinery into motion.
Consequently it was agreed on all hands that there ought to be some restriction; that this procedure should be a very exceptional procedure, as it ought to be, and should not be lightly invoked, and for that reason there ought to be some measure of the gravity of the offence, so that if a man takes this course he should run the risk of having a really serious punishment if it were found that it was really a fraudulent use of the machinery. For that reason, six months was inserted. I wish that an explanation on those lines had been given yesterday, but it was not, and I think that when that explanation is given we see that there is a reason for imposing a limitation of time. But then

231
the Lord Chancellor thought a three months period would probably on the whole be more just and would give sufficient scope without opening too wide a door. I am glad that the Government have proposed that Amendment, and I gratefully accept the proposal of the Lord Chancellor, with many thanks for his kindness and courtesy.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I intervene just to elicit the precise form of the interpretation which the Lord Chancellor ruled should apply with regard to the words to which I called attention yesterday. I am making no case to excuse a contumacious person, but in the small number of cases where the tribunal, having heard the case, decides that the man acted from conscientious motives, and that he ought not to be in the Army at all, if such a man is undergoing a sentence of, we will say, eighteen months or a year, and he still has a considerable part of it to serve, say, nine months, I understand that the ruling of the Lord Chancellor is that, notwithstanding the words remaining in the clause, that he should "be discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him," those words will not preclude the Secretary of State from releasing the man before the remainder of his sentence has been served. I understand that that is so. If so, I accept that interpretation from the highest legal authority in the realm, and all that I can say is that, having accepted the interpretation, I regard the words as meaningless.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say one word in answer to the noble Lord, because he has not observed the difference between a recommendation by the tribunal and the act of the Secretary of State? The tribunal, whether or not the man has acted from conscientious motives, has power to recommend the Secretary of State that he be discharged. The words of the clause are "discharged from the Army Reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed." That means that a tribunal, which of course has no power to direct a Secretary of State to do something, may have power to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State—namely, that after the man has served his legal sentence, he be discharged from the Army Reserve. The Secretary of State is to be recommended to take a particular
232
course; the clause does not say anything about the Secretary of State being prevented from taking that course under the existing sections of the Army Act. The sections in the Army Act under which the Secretary of State can remit a sentence remain totally unaffected. I could give other illustrations, but I hope the matter is clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the remaining Amendment is drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction") and insert ("summary conviction thereof").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.1 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed some anxiety which was felt on account of the Officers Training Corps and the Cadet Corps. Since then, I understand, representatives of the headmasters have been in touch with the War Office and are now led to suppose that the War Office authorities really appreciate the importance, not only of honouring what I believe to be a contract between the War Office and the holders of certificates of proficiency, but also the importance of giving the Officers Training Corps a really effective place in the new plan for national defence. I am sure that those who feel the importance of this subject will be extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for War for that assurance. At the same time it is only an assurance, and it seems to me that the matter will still want careful watching, particularly in the early stages, so that the Officers Training Corps and the Cadet Corps do not lose their popularity and their appeal, which would be difficult to recover at a later stage. I shall say nothing on the subject of the Universities, for in his place I see my noble and gallant friend Lord Birdwood, who can speak with such authority on the subject.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I trust it may not be too late for the Secretary of State for War to make certain amendments in the conditions of service on which young men will now enter the Militia. Possibly some of your Lordships are aware that practically the whole of my service has been passed in very close association with soldiers, and during that time I have had the privilege of raising, organising, and training corps of men from this old country and from Australia and India. In doing that one has recognised, and naturally recognised, that the greatest difficulty is the production of officers—a difficulty which increases enormously in proportion to the number of troops you are raising. Here we are faced with the question of raising 200,000 men simultaneously, almost immediately. The difficulty would be far greater if one did not see, as I do, two pools into which we can dip to obtain some of the material we want. The first of these pools I have in mind are young men of the age of those who are now coming up to be enlisted—twenty and twenty-one.
For the last seven years I have been fortunate in being Chairman of the Military Studies Board at Cambridge, during which time I met almost daily members of the University, undergraduates, who wished to join either the military forces or the Royal Air Force. I also came into very close touch with the members of the O.T.C. and the squadron of the Air Force, and I know well what really fine and fit young men they are—men determined to do their best, keen, energetic, and able. Many of these are men who have done three or four years with their Cadet Corps in their schools before coming up to the University, where they again do three years in the O.T.C., many of them obtaining A and B certificates which do require a certain amount of military knowledge which would be most useful. It strikes me that it would be an absolute waste of material and, what is more important at present, of time, if these young men all have to join the ranks in the units to be raised for the Militia. In saying this I do not want to be misunderstood about the democratisation of the forces, because I entirely believe it is right that every young man, of whatever status, should join the new units as a private. That should be the case
234
in normal times, but the present is far from normal—it is abnormal—and time may be an absolutely vital factor. I therefore think it would be quite wrong that we should waste the time of these young men by making them join in every case as privates.
There are, I understand, certain exceptions already. I would like the War Office to agree that any men who have served, say, at least two years in the O.T.C. and have taken their certificates should, instead of joining these units as privates, be drafted to a special training college—training colleges probably—for officers which should be formed. We have quite a good nucleus for them already. There are three corps—the Honourable Artillery Company, the Artists, and the Inns of Court. All these units did invaluable work during the War in training young officers, and they still continue to do so. I suggest that they should be used as a nucleus, in conjunction with any other school that may be raised, for training these young men in the higher duties of officers.
In recommending that to your Lordships, I speak from a certain amount of personal experience. Your Lordships may remember that after Lord Kitchener gave up his appointment as Commander-in-Chief in India in 1909 the Governments of New Zealand and Australia asked him to go out to those Dominions to organise and make recommendations regarding their Defence Forces. He went out early in 1910, his recommendations were accepted, and I have always felt it was as the result of that that those two great Dominions were able to put into the field, as they did in 1914, the magnificent organised forces that helped us so much throughout the War. I had the privilege of taking over the command of Australian and New Zealand troops in Egypt in 1914. They served with me during the Dardanelles campaign and later in France. One point I noticed as soon as I took over the New Zealanders was the extraordinarily good training of their young officers. Among Lord Kitchener's recommendations had been one that young men out there in the same category as those I have mentioned as members of our O.T.C., instead of being sent into the ranks in New Zealand units, should go into a small military college formed for them. That was done, and when I was talking to the Prime Minister

235
of New Zealand after the War about the efficiency of these young officers, he said he attributed it entirely to the excellent training they had received at these military colleges. I cannot help thinking it would be an enormous advantage if we could do the same thing in this case.
The other pool consists of officers who have left the Army. The Secretary of State for War a year or two ago formed a Committee under the Chairmanship of a very distinguished member of your Lordships' House, Lord Willingdon, to draw up proposals for the conditions of service of officers in the Army. These recommendations were accepted. Among them was one which equalised to a very great extent and improved and accelerated the conditions of promotion of officers in the Army, and also reduced the age at which officers must compulsorily retire. As a result there are now a considerable number of officers in this country of both the British and Indian Armies, of the rank of major mostly, with some senior captains, all of whom would be available and I know would willingly come forward to do their bit. A great number of them have not private means except small pensions, and they should be given allowances which would in any case prevent their being out of pocket by reason of their services. I trust that the Secretary of State for War may take into consideration the suggestions I have made.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in general support of this Bill. About eight months ago my noble friend Lord Buckmaster and myself tried to press upon the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, the desirability of introducing some form of universal service, but at that time the noble Earl was not able to say that the Government were willing to concede our request. I am very glad, however, that what I consider a happy event has at last arrived. I share not only the point of view of the noble Viscount and that of my old friend the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches about officers, but also what has been said with regard to the benefit of this Bill to the young people of the country. They are going to have a most wonderful opportunity of improving themselves in every way. They are going to have good con-
236
ditions of service, good food, good barracks and an opportunity of training for other professions afterwards. Moreover, they will have instilled into them a sense of responsibility and patriotism which some of them, unfortunately, have not got at the present time.
I speak with some slight knowledge, because I myself have served in three campaigns and I constantly have to go to Germany. The young men you see everywhere, in Germany, in the country and in the streets, compare advantageously with what we often see in this country. One has only got to go to the Royal Military Tournament to see splendid examples of what can be done, particularly by the Air Force, with young men who have had a short period of training. They are tall, lithe, smart, effective, healthy young men. In contrast, unfortunately, one sees very often in the streets here, round-backed, narrow-chested, sloppy young fellows who seem to take very little interest in anything. I think that this is a great opportunity for our young men, and not something to be regarded as an onerous burden. From what we have heard in the course of the discussions on this Bill I think we can regard this as a great event which will benefit both our young men and the country generally.
4.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is my privilege to offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government our most sincere congratulations to the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the occasion of his maiden speech to your Lordships. My noble friend, as the House knows only too well, has served with great distinction throughout his life in the armed forces of the Crown, and it is only natural that your Lordships should listen attentively to any views that he may wish to express not only on this but on any future occasion on which he sees fit to address the House.
Our discussions on this Bill are now drawing to a close, and I have no desire whatever to weary the House with a Second Reading speech at this stage. Instead, I shall endeavour to reply to some of the questions which were addressed to the Government yesterday in the course of the Committee stage proceedings and again to-day on the Report stage of the Bill. There was in the course

237
of our discussion yesterday a question raised by three noble Lords, Lord Addison, Lord Howe and Lord Radnor, as to the possibility of reinstating in the Territorial Army these men who have completed their military service. I told the noble Lords yesterday that I would be prepared to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for War, and he has approved to-day that regulations will be issued to all Territorial Army units that when a man is called upon to perform his duties in the Militia for a period of six months, he will at the conclusion of his training be automatically allowed to rejoin his unit provided, as I said yesterday, that his conduct and behaviour have been satisfactory during his period of training. I want to make it quite clear at this stage that any man, whether or not holding some rank in the Territorial Army, on joining the Militia will do so as a private. If his qualifications are such as to justify selection, he will, as I mentioned in my speech at the Second Reading, be transferred to a Section Leader School for the last two months of his service during which time he will hold the acting rank of lance-corporal.
I think my noble and gallant friend Lord Birdwood will observe that these young men from the Universities who have either certificate A or both certificates A and B will not in fact be wasting their time. They will have four months training, after which time, if they are selected, they will go to this Section Leader School which is to be formed at Netheravon for the particular purpose. I am glad to hear my noble friend Lord Bridgeman state that the Headmasters' Conference do appreciate that the War Office are taking every step and regards the junior O.T.C. as a very important officer-producing unit in this country. I feel certain that my right honourable friend will most carefully watch all that happens with regard to this force, and indeed it is gratifying to know that the Headmasters' Conference do realise that my right honourable friend is doing as much as he possibly can for that particular unit. A question was raised yesterday, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to whether the six months Militia service of any man would count as qualifying service for the efficiency medal. I have made inquiries into this question, and I find that, as the militiamen are being
238
enlisted under Section 30 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, they do appear to come within the provisions of the Royal Warrant dealing with this medal. Therefore, this six months will count as a qualifying service towards that medal.
Finally, there is the question, raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow on the Report stage of this Bill, concerning medical students who may be called upon to undergo their training. This matter is one which is at the present moment under active consideration. There are three factors which we have to take into account in dealing with this problem. First, there is the period in their course at which medical students do their military training. If that is postponed for the period until they gain their certificate, I understand they will come up for training at the age of twenty-five, and in that case this period will not occur till three years have elapsed. Secondly, the number of medical students at one time and the training facilities which will be available have also to be taken into consideration; and, lastly, the fact that the Royal Army Medical Corp Militia require men who will remain in the R.A.M.C. as nursing orderlies when they are required has also to be taken into account. The noble Earl will observe, therefore, that these are all matters which we are now taking into consideration, and about which I can, unfortunately, give him no further information at this stage. I was glad to hear the remarks which fell from my noble friend Lord Mersey, speaking on behalf of a portion of the Liberal party.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Two or three.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am happy to think, anyhow, that two or three members of the Liberal Party associate themselves with him in endorsing the views of His Majesty's Government that this training of certain types of young men in this country will be of the greatest benefit to them and will probably encourage them in large numbers to join the Regular Forces of the Crown. I say no more. I know the Government are grateful to noble Lords who, we are prepared to admit, have been somewhat rushed in dealing with this Bill. I trust that when the period of three years has elapsed the pro-

239
visions of this measure will be no longer required.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
5.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Wild Birds (Duck and Geese) Protection,
Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland), Limitation,
Camps,
Public Health (Coal Mine Refuse) (Scotland),
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces,
Conway Gas,
All Hallows Lombard Street,
Northmet Power,
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock,
Mumbles Pier,
City of London (Various Powers),
London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund),
Willenhall Urban District Council,
Gosport Corporation,
Saint Nicholas Millbrook (Southampton) Church (Sale),
Methodist Church,
The King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association,
London Midland and Scottish Railway,
Royal Wanstead School,
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company,
Smethwick Oldbury Rowley Regis and Tipton Transport.