HL Deb 08 November 1939 vol 114 cc1784-96

5.57 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON had the following Notice on the Paper: To draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the ill-considered and inconsiderate commandeering of horses, the inadequate compensation paid and to the heavy casualties suffered among the horses so commandeered owing to their unsuitability for the work and incompetent care of them; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall follow the admirable example in brevity which has been set by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. When I put this Motion down I was not aware that the subject had been very recently raised in another place, but I do not think I need apologise for that, because since I have been inspired by the sufferings of my neighbours quite independently to put down a similar Motion, it seems to me that the reply made on behalf of the Government in another place is largely invalidated as it was there suggested that the cases quoted by the honourable member who raised the subject were exceptional. As I have found similar cases amongst my own neighbours, that can no longer be maintained. I do not intend, as I say, to speak at any length, but I shall quote one or two cases that have come within my own knowledge of valuable horses being ruthlessly commandeered and most inadequate prices being paid for them.

For example, one of my neighbours had a horse commandeered for which last year she paid £250. For this she was paid £60. Another of my neighbours was even more unfortunate. He had two horses commandeered, and was paid £100 for the pair, after having paid, last year, £300 for one and £250 for the other. These are the sufferings of private individuals; but other cases are even more disturbing. One is that of a trainer who had a horse, a thoroughbred, commandeered, which I am informed, not by himself but by those who knew the horse, would be reasonably valued at £1,000. He received £60. Another case—not, I am interested to note, the same case as was quoted in another place last week—is that of a dealer whose stock was decimated by the remount officers. This case and that of the trainer seem to me far more serious than those of private individuals because they represent taking away these particular persons' means of livelihood.

That, I am sorry to say, is not the end of the story, because the careers of some of these horses have been traced by their owners. The thoroughbred of which I spoke was sent to a Yeomanry regiment, where it proved completely useless. Nobody was able to ride it, and it has now been returned to its owner, branded and probably useless. That is not a unique experience. I have heard of worse cases of which I shall tell your Lordships shortly, of other horses whose careers have been traced. They were ladies in this case. Ladies take perhaps a more sentimental interest in their horses, and they traced these horses. One was sent to the Yeomanry and the lady discovered it was dead. It was one of 150 horses which had been left out in wet blankets. I understand that even waterproof blankets were not available at this particular regiment. The horses were left out in all weathers, and 150 of them died. The other lady traced her horse, and she obtained permission, from perhaps an unsuspecting Colonel, to inspect the lines. She found that the horses were all, in her opinion, in a very distressing condition. She is a very good judge of the condition of horse flesh. Many of them had got their four feet entangled in the ropes, and had rubbed their legs till they became sore. Her own horse had been kicked by a horse in the line behind it, and had an open wound which apparently, after several days, had not been dressed at all.

This is the burden of my complaint. A real injustice has been done to people by commandeering their property at an extremely inadequate price. Even more serious I think from a national point of view, is the wastage involved, because I think it is universally admitted that our horse flesh is one of the assets of the country. These horses which have been taken are not of a suitable type for the purpose. Incidentally I may say that I have had complaints from officers in these regiments that they have found the horses practically useless because their men cannot ride them. To take these horses and to put them in conditions in which they cannot be of much use, and in conditions in which some of them die because they are not used to such rough treatment, seems to me to be an iniquitous waste of a national asset. That, very briefly, is my case, and I do hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to give us some sort of encouragement. I would suggest that it might be possible to compensate more adequately those who, I venture to say frankly, have been robbed, or failing that, that these horses which are unsuitable should be returned to their owners. Speaking for my own part of the country, I know that suitable horses were available and could have been bought in adequate numbers at the standard prices. I suggest, therefore, that these horses which have been so commandeered might perhaps be returned to their owners. I beg to move.

6.3 p.m.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I make no apology for speaking upon this subject because I happened during the last war to be Acting Director of Remounts. I carefully read the debate which took place in another place, and I am sorry that the noble Lord who has moved this Motion did not derive any satisfaction from it. The terms of this Motion seem to me rather ill-advised, and to be too stringent and too censorious. In a matter of urgency of this kind there must be mistakes made by the officers who have to go round and get horses. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that during the last war there was a system of giving ten shillings a horse to retain the horses, and that that system no longer exists. Therefore a great deal of difficulty was experienced by our officers in securing the horses needed. I should like to know how many complaints were received, how many horses were actually commandeered against the will of the owners, and how many horses were taken whose owners were delighted to get rid of them.

At the beginning of the war there was a big slump in everything concerning hunting and the riding of horses generally. I should think that for the most part the prices paid for those horses that were taken were very good prices to give for them at the particular moment they were taken by the Government. This question is raised some time after the war started, and I ask your Lordships to remember the difficulties which had to be encountered at the outset. Officers were suddenly ordered to get these horses for the Army. Of course mistakes were made and always are made under such conditions. But the evil is not really so great as may be imagined from the speech of the noble Lord, because the number of horses being used by the Army now is nothing like so great as it was in the last war. At the start of the last war we had something like 19,000 horses, after four years of war we had nearly half a million, and at the end of the war we had 720,000 animals all over the world.

I can assure the noble Lord, when he goes into the question of horses being left out in the open, that that is a natural thing to do under conditions of war. After all, there are not so many Cavalry regiments left in our Army. These horses were sent to Yeomanry regiments for the most part. As your Lordships know, the great bulk of the Army has been mechanised, and very naturally there is some difficulty on a wet night. When horses are pegged out in the open they do not get that careful attention that is given to them when they are in a regular regiment's headquarters. Some horses do get kicked under the best conditions in the world, so I do not attach so very much importance to the complaint about one horse being kicked by another. As regards the price paid for the horses, I may say that we had a great many complaints of high-class horses being commandeered that ought not to have been commandeered, and the War Office, by leave of the Treasury, met a great many of those cases and gave satisfaction. People will understand, of course, that in times of emergency we must requisition horses and must get what we want. After all, the national interest comes first. I am quite aware that there are grievances, but I think most of your Lordships will agree that those who had to do this work of getting the horses required at the beginning of the war did it under extreme difficulties. I am sure they did the best they could.

In conclusion I should like to quote a letter which appeared in the Veterinary Record of November 4. This was from a veterinary officer who accompanied some of the remount officers. He wrote: As one engaged in that work I venture to state that conditions are not quite so bad as your report would indicate. The writer was replying to a letter which had appeared in the previous week in this veterinary journal making similar complaints to those adumbrated by the noble Lord in his speech. The writer of the letter continues: Perhaps I have been lucky in being attached to purchasing officers who knew their work and being in a country where there are plenty of good useful horses to choose from, but I can say we had no difficulty in getting our number of as useful saddle horses as it was possible to find in any country. Having been at the same work in the last war I consider we found better quality animals and at almost as cheap a rate as we did in 1914. Of course, on this occasion we were allowed more time and the number needed was very much less. I have never yet seen the necessity of commandeering. Owners are very good to work with at such times. Occasionally an owner—and generally it is a lady owner—will burst forth and tell you he or she would rather shoot them than let them go to the Army, but just a reminder as to how they stand usually serves the purpose at once. The reception given to the buyer to-day by the hunting men is very similar to that accorded him by the cabmen in 1914; it is usually, 'These are our horses; take what you like and do the best you can for us.' Members in the House seem to forget that, immediately war broke out, all hunters, regardless of cost, and probably almost four-fifths of all racehorses were reduced to Army value in one day. That is signed by a gentleman I do not know, Wm. A. Campbell, Veterinary Infirmary, Boroughbridge, York.

I would prefer to take the testimony of a man who did work in the last war and has also done work in this war. There must, of course, be complaints of this kind, but I am perfectly sure that if they are investigated it will be found that they are very rarely of substance. There is a remedy now in the County Court, under Section 113 of the Army Act, and I am confident also from what happened on the last occasion that the War Office will take into consideration any exceptional cases.

6.11 p.m.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT COBHAM)

My Lords, the noble Lord is of course perfectly right when he says that this matter has been brought up in another place and replied to by my right honourable friend and the Finance Member on several occasions. It is a matter of some surprise to us, even those of us who have dealt very largely in horseflesh, that the members of that community should be so extraordinarily vocal. After very careful and full investigation of the whole of these complaints we cannot find that there is a substantial justification for the words "ill-considered and inconsiderate commandeering of horses." Ill-considered! This plan for the impressment of horses was laid down in 1937, two years ago, and careful arrangements were made over a certain number of districts in the country. The plan did not cover the whole of the country—that I believe is one of the grounds of complaint—but owing to lack of money, and also to the great extent of the mechanisation of the Army, it was not considered necessary to have more than eight district assistant remount officers. These officers were given very definite instructions as to what was to happen when an emergency put this particular order into operation. They were then to appoint buyers—buyers had been appointed before then, but their appointment was reviewed every three years—for every part of their district. These buyers would seek the help of other gentlemen, or of retired officers, who could give assistance in the work of collecting horses. That in the great majority of cases is what occurred.

Commandeering! Out of the large number of horses acquired from the start of the war up to to-day less than 3 per cent. were acquired by compulsion. The great majority were acquired in the way in which they were acquired in my own country. Owners of horses got notice from the buying officer that he would visit a certain place at a certain time on a certain date. Anybody who wished to sell horses to the Government could take his horses to that spot at that time. No one was compelled to send horses, but it was astonishing how many were sent to that locality. I myself sent a number of my own hunt horses. None of them were taken because none of them fell within the required specification, but that is as may be. All those horses that were sent certainly cost more than £100 to buy originally, and I dare say most of their owners thought them still worth more than £100, but owing to the outbreak of war and owing to the necessity of cutting down establishments they were glad to take what the remount buying officer was prepared to give for them.

District remount officers impressed upon their buyers that in every case the utmost consideration should be given to the sellers of horses. In a big undertaking like that, carried through rather at a rush, I think it really surprising that complaints have not been far more numerous than they have been. No doubt here and there mistakes were made—the noble Lord referred to one mistake—but of all those from whom horses were bought only nine made appeals, and all of them knew they could appeal. Two of them have since withdrawn their appeals, and so there are only seven cases now before the Courts. What is the fair value of a horse? It has been suggested that we ought to standardise the price of a horse in the same way that secondhand motor cars are now standardised. But when does a horse become secondhand, and to whom is the real value—is it the value to the man selling the horse, or is it the value to the buyer? I think the noble Lord will know perfectly well from his own experience in his own part of the country that the value of a horse in the eyes of a seller is very different from the value of the same horse in the eyes of a buyer. I shall certainly find out about the horse that cost £1,000. Of course that was a mistake. No horse of that value should have been acquired in that way. The fact that it was unridable may be surprising, but the fact that it was returned after being branded certainly does not make it completely unsuitable for use.

LORD FARINGDON

It was rather the treatment that it received that made it doubtful whether it would be of any further use, I understand.

VISCOUNT COBHAM

At the start of the last war we used to receive batches of remounts, and quite a number of them were difficult to manage. We had to get them so that they would behave themselves in the ranks. We had to train them to stand quietly in all weathers and get them used to the shackling rope on their heels. Your Lordships will understand that it is sometimes not easy to do that without certain strong treatment. The noble Lord made complaint that 150 died in one regiment. Out of the whole number of horses bought since the beginning of the war and of horses belonging to the Army before the war, including officers' chargers and cavalry horses, exactly 115 have died. That is out of a great many thousands. As to horses standing outside with wet blankets on: of course they would probably be very much better without their blankets on. But compare it with the last war. When we started, we took over a number of horses that had been turned out all the summer. We gradually tried to get them in condition, but immediately we put them into cold and draughty stables indoors they immediately began to fall away in condition and began to run at the nose. We had all sorts of difficulties, and so we turned them out again and left them out in the open air until November or December. The open air is the natural place for a horse, and it is a great deal better for it to be there than in some of these barns, stabling and various places where the Yeomanry are trying to accommodate their horses at the present time.

I do not want to keep your Lordships any longer. I have tried to answer most of the points raised by the noble Lord. But there is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Both the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon and Lord Jessel, have mentioned it. That is, that the lady owners have perhaps more affection for their horses than the men owners. I have heard it said in many cases: "We do not want to sell our horses to the Army, because what they do at the end is to sell them to these foreigners, and we know what treatment they get from the foreigners." It has been said before in another place, and I wish to repeat it, that now no horse is allowed to be sold abroad from the Army in any circumstances. Horses that are sent abroad, if they are fit and young enough—that is, if they are not worn out—will be brought back to England; otherwise they will be destroyed under military supervision. There is no question now of their being sold for a very small price and left in the country to which they had been taken.

There are many of us in this House who have spent a long period of our lives with horses and with the Cavalry, and I can really assure the noble Lord that when these horses get into the hands of the Cavalry or of the Yeomanry they do receive the very best treatment. You cannot always control the places in which they find themselves; you cannot control the mud in which they sometimes have to stand; but actually, as to their treatment, the commanding officers and the squadron leaders are not doing their duty unless they see to it that the horses that are put in their charge receive the very best consideration and treatment.

6.23 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer, which I hope will prove consoling to those who read it and who have not had the occasion to hear it. Might I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that I hear everywhere favourable comparisons between the commandeering of horses in the last war and the process during this war? I think neither of the noble Lords quite appreciated—and particularly Lord Jessel did not quite appreciate—my point that a suitable type of horse, a type of horse which would not have suffered from hardships, is available, was available in the last war and was taken in the last war, but is not apparently being taken at the present time. That is the burden of part of my complaint. The noble Viscount who replied for the Government described conditions in his own countryside which are peculiarly different from those obtaining in mine. So far as I know, people were not asked to send their horses to a certain place; they were informed that the remount officer and the veterinary officer, and perhaps a buyer, would visit them on a certain date, and these officers came and picked what they would have. The owners were unofficially informed beforehand that it would be better for them not to make any fuss lest a worse thing befall them.

Both the noble Lords have referred to the tender hearts of the ladies. I have not had myself any experience of a case where a lady owner has said that she would rather her horse were dead than that it should go to the Army. On the contrary, I have found everywhere a generosity of giving. My complaint, and the complaint of most of those people, has been that their horses are unsuitable horses for the purpose and that they have therefore suffered. In fact, most of my informants have not complained particularly bitterly about the rate of remuneration, although that has struck me, and it may strike noble Lords, as low. It is all very well; the noble Lord may talk about a difference between the price which a seller is prepared to take and the price which a buyer is prepared to give, but there is a difference between the price given to a willing seller and the price given to a forced seller. I am sure the noble Lord will see that there is a very perceptible difference there. It may be that the values of hunters and such horses did fall very heavily immediately on the outbreak of the war, but the noble Lord admitted tacitly that it has already improved somewhat. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who said that that was two months ago. I think most horse owners would have been prepared to keep their horses for at least two months to see if their value improved. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Jesse], implied, as did the other noble Lord, that the cases I have mentioned were exceptional. I can assure him that the cases I have mentioned are the rule amongst all my neighbours.

LORD JESSEL

You are very unfortunate, then.

LORD FARINGDON

No, my neighbours are. But still, that is the case, and I am sorry that the Government have not been able to give us more comfort. I can only hope that the misfortunes which certain people have suffered in the past will not be repeated in the future. The directions given to the officers are perfectly satisfactory in themselves. The orders are that they should find a suitable type of horse at a suitable price. That is perfectly satisfactory. Evidently in many cases, or in certain areas at any rate, they have not followed those directions, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will see that in any future cases those directions are sternly followed. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Motion.

6.28 p.m.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, on that Motion, the noble Lord hopes that this will be a consolation to certain owners; but I wish at this stage to draw your Lordships' attention to the procedure adopted by Lord Faringdon. He moves the innocent Motion for Papers, but he precedes that by a preamble of the most offensive character, bringing charge after charge against a very responsible, a very hard-worked and a very honourable body of men. I venture to say that those who have listened to the explanation given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham, will agree with me in saying that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is utterly unjustified, grossly unjustified. Here are his words: He charges this corps with "ill-considered" action, with "inconsiderate" action, with paying improper prices for the goods that they commandeer, with handling the matter so badly that these poor horses have suffered heavy casualties; and he goes on to say that the people who did this work were unsuitable for their task and incompetent to take care of the horses. That is a very gross series of charges, and if they are measured or to be tested by the few definite charges which he made and the definite answers which the noble Viscount, Lord Cobham, gave, I say that the preamble is utterly unjustified. One hundred and fifty horses commandeered for one unit, put out at night in the month of August, and 150 of them died—it is inconceivable.

LORD FARINGDON

I beg the noble Earl's pardon: I did not say that 100 per cent. of those commandeered had died.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I understood that 150 horses in one unit had died.

LORD FARINGDON

That was the figure I was given.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I say it is inconceivable that horses taken out in the month of August could have died and nobody should have heard about it. The noble Viscount below me said that, taking all the horses commandeered and adding to them all the horses in the Army since the beginning of the war, only 115 have actually died—less than 1 per cent. The preamble to a Motion for Papers cannot be amended. It is impossible for me to record my dissent to the charges made in that preamble, and I therefore take the only course at my disposal, after the charges made by Lord Faringdon and the overwhelming answer made by Lord Cobham, by expressing my emphatic dissent.

6.32 p.m.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, before the Motion is put: I think it is the privilege of any noble Lord in this House to move for Papers and to present the best arguments that he has on the best information that he has in support of his case. I resent the censorious attitude adopted by the noble Earl who has just spoken. A noble Lord gets information about this matter and tries to bring it before your Lordships as a matter of public duty. He has to rely upon information that has come to him, and has not all the weight of a Department whose statements we cannot test to-day. These facts ought not to prevent a Motion so submitted from being received courteously by members of your Lordships' House.

6.33 p.m.

EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, I do not think that quite meets the case. Here was a Motion down on the Paper attacking a whole corps of officers who, as the noble Lord opposite knows, cannot defend themselves. They are not allowed to reply in the Press and are not allowed to make statements. Here is a member of your Lordships' House who takes advantage of his position as a member of this assembly to put down charges on paper attacking this whole corps of officers in the way which my noble friend behind me described it. I think the noble Earl was quite justified in complaining of the terms of this Motion. Every noble Lord is, of course, entitled to complain of and criticise Government Departments, but to put down a Motion making charges against and criticising persons who cannot reply is to set an example which I think ought not to be followed.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The preamble to a Motion cannot be voted against.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before seven o'clock.