Lords Sitting of 20 May 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Monteagle (M. Sligo)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

MESSAGE FROM THE EGYPTIAN SENATE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I have to inform the House that I have received a telegram from the President of the Egyptian Senate expressing the deep indignation of that body at the destructive air attacks made on the Houses of Parliament ten days ago, and conveying its sincere good wishes for the final victory of democracy. The House will perhaps authorise me to send a suitable Message in reply.
The said Message from the President of the Egyptian Senate was ordered to be entered on the Journals of the House.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE SIR WILLIAM PULTENEY, THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL AND THE EARL OF SUFFOLK.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I regret that in accordance with our usual practice I have formally to report three losses which have befallen the House. The first is that of our old friend Black Rod, who was familiar to all of us for many years past. He was appointed Black Rod in 1920, and since then his genial personality made him, I am sure, a great friend of every one of us. He was a man of very active habits, and he would have found an invalid life almost intolerable, so that we can at least be thankful that he was spared a long illness. He had lived a very full and varied life. In his early career, he alternated between the Scots Guards and employment under the Foreign Office in the African Protectorate of Uganda and in the Congo. When he first found an opening in command in South Africa he did very well with his column, and when the Great War came,
196
from the start he commanded the Third Corps, retaining that command until the beginning of 1918. Some Corps Commanders were rather aloof from their troops, but I am sure that the many noble Lords who passed through his Corps will remember that that was never the way with "Putty." He was always trusted, and indeed beloved, by those who came in contact with him. He had an extraordinary power, in the Army, of inspiring confidence, and I am quite sure that many will feel a deep sense of personal loss and long miss "Putty's" friendly presence and cheery smile.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, was a distinguished member of the Liberal Party who often took part in debates in your Lordships' House. He was the first Governor-General of New Zealand, being in office as Governor when the Dominion was first formed. In early life he had done soldiering, and it was characteristic of him that at the age of seventy he went back to the Home Guard.
The noble Earl, Lord Suffolk, who was not very well known to your Lordships, met his death in an air-raid. He was a man in early middle life, of varied experience and great promise, having done scientific work of distinction and lately having accepted a post of importance in connection with his special subject under the Government. I am sure your Lordships will wish me, on your behalf, to express our sympathy with Lady Pulteney, the Countess of Liverpool, the Countess of Suffolk, and their bereaved families.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, I should like to endorse everything the noble Lord opposite has said. We all remember the unfailing courtesy and friendliness which Sir William Pulteney showed when we went to him with the customary request, and also the great dignity and efficiency with which he performed the complicated ceremonial duties connected with his office. We should like to offer our very sincere sympathy to the members of his family, and also our grateful appreciation of his long and distinguished record of public service. Your Lordships' House has suffered two further grievous losses, to which the noble Lord has referred, in the deaths of Lord Liverpool and Lord Suffolk, and we should like to extend our sympathy also to the members of their families.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in these days we have to deplore many deaths, in addition to those due to the ordinary lot of mortality, through the tragic events of the war. Now your Lordships' House has again been bereaved by the death by enemy action of Lord Suffolk. Although, as the Leader of the House has said, he was not so well known as others in this assembly, we knew he had a distinguished scientific career and combined the most ancient lineage with the most modern learning. Lord Liverpool, to us on these Benches, was a lifelong colleague in political matters. He held the high office, first of Governor, and then, when New Zealand was raised from the rank of Colony to that of Dominion, he became its first Governor-General. We remember his long career in various spheres of public service, and grieve for his loss. Our own Black Rod, Sir William Pulteney, after a most distinguished military career that raised him to the very high post of commander of an Army Corps in the Great War, retired to the peaceful avocations of the office of Black Rod. We all remember his kindly, friendly personality, and for his death also we express our regret and our sympathy with those who have teen bereaved.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, will you grant me indulgence to add a few words to those which have already been said regarding the loss your Lordships' House has sustained? I should like especially to refer to Sir William Pulteney, Black Rod, to whom the Leader of the House has made such touching reference. I suppose that in this House there is no one who has been more closely associated for a longer time with Sir William Pulteney than myself, and I am sure the House will feel that it has suffered a severe; loss in the death of Black Rod, who discharged the duties of his office so faithfully and well. Apart from his duties in your Lordships' House, reference has been made by noble Lords to his career in the Army. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the one great thing in Sir William Pulteney's career, and the example for all of us that he set, was his stem adherence to duty and his determination to do his best whatever vocation he was called upon to fill. Many of his intimate friends, like myself, and a much wider circle have. I feel, suffered a severe loss.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Londonderry has spoken of Sir William Pulteney. May I add one word about Lord Suffolk? I feel rather sad to-day because if it had not been for me Lord Suffolk might perhaps have been with us still. When the war broke out Lord Suffolk, who had already suffered from rheumatic fever, was unable to join the infantry, and through one of the members of His Majesty's Government I was able to get him into the Ministry of Supply. There he did extraordinarily well. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has already told your Lordships, he had a great career before him in the scientific world. He had spent years at Edinburgh learning chemistry and it was for this reason that he was taken into the Ministry of Supply. There he was thought so well of that the Government sent him to Paris as liaison officer between the French Government and the English Government. When the Germans went into Norway the Allies used some particular chemical, the only supply of which was in Norway, and they got it to Paris. When the débâcle took place in France Lord Suffolk, on his own initiative and with great enterprise, seized this supply of chemical and took it to Bordeaux. Having got it as far as Bordeaux, he had next to get it to England. He went on board a French battleship and demanded an escort and a machine gun and got them. He put them into a lorry and took this precious consignment of chemicals—the only supply in the world—and brought it to England together with a large supply of diamonds. He got the chemicals and diamonds and the escort all safely to England.
After that, Lord Suffolk was employed by the Ministry of Supply in England and he took on the most dangerous work of destroying unexploded bombs. He spent all his time doing that. One morning I met him and said "Where are you going?" "I am going," he replied, "to Richmond Park." I asked what he was going to do there and he answered, "I am going to deal with unexploded bombs." I asked him if there were many there and he said, "Yes, twenty or thirty." I saw him in the evening and said how glad I was to see him back alive. He might have just come back from a day's shooting. This brave man

199
thought nothing of dealing with unexploded bombs. I would like to add this tribute to him because I think he was not well known in your Lordships' House. We shall never see him here again and I think this tribute ought to be included in your Lordships' records. As Lord Samuel said, he was the head of a great family of very ancient lineage. His father died for his country in Mesopotamia in the last war and he has died for his country to-day. While the heads of our great families continue to show this great example we need have no fear for England.

MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE COMMONS.
Message from the Commons to communicate the following Resolution which they have passed nemine contradicente:
"That this House expresses its grateful thanks to the House of Peers for their Message relating to the destruction of the Chamber of the House of Commons, and assures the House of Peers of its determination that the long tradition of our Parliamentary institutions will remain unbroken by the violence of the enemy, and that the war will be prosecuted to a successful conclusion."
The same was ordered to be entered on the Journals of the House.

TEMPORARY MIGRATION OF CHILDREN (GUARDIANSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Cecil.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL. OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Guardianship of children sent overseas during the present war period.
1.—(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that for the purpose of affording assistance to any authorities or persons in any country outside the United Kingdom who undertake responsibility for the welfare of children who are in that country without their parents in consequence of war operations, it is expedient to appoint guardians for any children sent out
200
of the United Kingdom during the present war period who are for the time being in that country, he may, on the application of any such authority or person, appoint such guardians; and a person so appointed as guardian for any child is hereinafter referred to as the appointed guardian of the child:
(2) Where a person has become the appointed guardian of a child in any country, then, subject as hereinafter provided, so long as the child remains in that country the appointed guardian shall be deemed to be the sole guardian of the person of the child, and may exercise all functions exercisable in accordance with the law of England by the sole guardian of the person of an infant domiciled in England, notwithstanding that the child may not be so domiciled, including the function of authorising any person to act on his behalf in respect of such matters as he thinks proper:
(3) The Secretary of State may revoke the appointment of any appointed guardian; and if the parents of any child who was sent out of the United Kingdom before the passing of this Act and for whom such a guardian has been appointed request the Secretary of State to revoke the appointment, the Secretary of Stat shall, as soon as he is satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the care of the child, revoke the appointment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne) moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities," to insert "society." The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment. The attention of the Government has been drawn to the fact that it might be legally held that the words "authority" or "person" might not cover such an unofficial body as the United States Committee. The word "society" is therefore to be inserted to make certain that that Committee is included under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("authorities") insert ("societies").—(Lord Cecil.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CECIL: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("society").—(Lord Cecil.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CECIL LORD CECIL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "any person" and insert "such authorities, societies, or persons as he considers suitable." The noble Lord

201
said: This Amendment arises upon a point that was raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on Second Reading. The purpose of the Amendment is to bring the Bill into closer harmony with the guiding principle of the British law of guardianship. This principle implies some personal relationship between the guardian and his ward, and the words that I propose in this Amendment make it clear that this principle is not abandoned in the present case. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington and His Majesty's High Commissioner in Canada will be required to make certain, before they delegate their responsibilities under the Bill, that the authority, society, or person who is to act on their behalf is personally suitable to take charge of the child in question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("any person") and insert ("such authorities, societies, or persons as he considers suitable").—(Lord Cecil.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CECIL LORD CECIL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "any appointed guardian" and insert "the appointed guardian of any child." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is merely to make certain that under the Bill the Secretary of State may revoke the appointment of any appointed guardian. It appears that the Bill as drafted might be taken as meaning that he would have to revoke the appointment of the guardians of all the children. Actually, the intention was that it should only apply to the guardianship of any single child affected by the Bill. This Amendment has been put down to cover that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("any appointed guardian") and insert ("the appointed guardian of any child").—(Lord Cecil).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CECIL LORD CECIL moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) For the purposes of this Act, a child domiciled in any part of the United Kingdom who has at any time during the present war period been left unaccompanied by his parents in any country outside the United Kingdom shall be deemed to have been sent out of the United Kingdom at that time."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been put down to deal with a point raised by the noble and learned Viscount,
202
Lord Maugham. He pointed out during the debate on Second Reading, that though the Bill covered all children who might be sent out of this country as a result of the war, it did not appear to cover children who were already in other countries, and who were left there by their parents as the result of the war. I undertook to look into the matter. I said the Bill was clearly intended to cover such cases, and that if it did not the Government would take steps to amend it. The present Amendment gives effect to that assurance.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection—(Lord Cecil).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

MAIL SERVICES FOR TROOPS OVERSEAS.
EARL MANVERS, who called attention to the delays in transit of mails of troops serving overseas, and moved for Papers, said: My Lords, I must begin by making the usual apology which you are accustomed to receive from those who have the hardihood to address your Lordships' House for the first time. Your Lordships are wont to listen to elder statesmen, to Admirals, to Field-Marshals, to Air Marshals, to bankers, to right reverend Prelates and to other famous speakers whose names are known throughout the country. I can make no such claim upon the attention of your Lordships' House. I am what I believe is known as a backwoodsman. I come from Sherwood Forest, where I live, to bring forward a matter which is causing distress among my friends and neighbours and which I believe is not unknown in your Lordships' House. I refer to the difficulty experienced by many parents, wives, sisters and fiancées in getting news of the young men in whom they are interested, who are serving as soldiers, sailors and airmen with His Majesty's Forces overseas.
With your Lordships' permission I will read one letter out of several which have reached me on the subject. The writer is a distinguished business man in Nottingham, and this is what he writes:
"Some time ago you were good enough to say that you would take up the question of

203
the delay of mails from the Middle East. Just then they improved. We (from two boys) and others with sons in local regiments have not received any letters for nearly two months. It is very trying for parents. All the mails cannot have been sunk. They got through a Christmas mail in about a week. There must be some lack of organisation. I am sure, many parents will be glad if you could ginger things up."
I am far from suggesting that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government needs gingering up, or that any poor words of mine would be effective for the purpose, but I do urge the noble Lord to give the matter his kindly consideration, remembering Solomon's ancient proverb: "As cold water to a thirsty soul so is good news from a far country."
During the last few days—after I had put this Motion on the Paper—a strange hybrid has appeared on the horizon, named an airgraph. It is a means, I understand, of transmitting messages by photography. I would like to congratulate His Majesty's Government very warmly upon the discovery of this invention, because I feel that it will go a long way to meet the point which I have ventured to raise. These letters when received will be regarded as most interesting war records by the people who receive them. May I venture to hope for an assurance from the noble Lord that the young men will be allowed to tell their own story in their own way and that their letters will not be subjected to too vigorous a censorship? I beg to move.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I am sure it will be your wish, as it will be my great privilege, to congratulate the noble Earl on his first addressing us, and to express the hope that we shall very often hear him in your Lordships' House in future. With your Lordships' permission I should like to say half a dozen words in support of the noble Earl's Motion. I had the opportunity during eighteen months abroad of noting the reaction of officers and men generally in the so-called Middle East to the very sad situation as regards the mails. During the whole time that I was in that part of the world the one and only complaint I ever heard was on that particular subject. The question men asked was: "When are we going to get our letters?" It was not only letters, but such communications as night letter telegrams and cables that were delayed. I myself had the experience of a telegram
204
taking nine days from London to Egypt. Since I left there I have had a letter from a colleague saying that a telegram despatched on December 28 reached him on February 4. Those are extreme cases, but I met the censors out there, who had the job of going through the letters of men in all three Services, and they all told the same story, that the only complaint they received was "When are we going to get our letters?" I would ask the Government to give very serious consideration to this matter, because when officers and men are carrying out rather arduous duties in a very trying climate it is a matter of supreme importance, as I am sure the Government will realise, that they should get letters at the earliest possible moment.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, if I may be permitted I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. That speech disclosed that he had some practice in public speaking, and I understand he was for many years a member of the London County Council. I am sure we shall all hope that he will take part in our debates frequently in the future. I should also like to welcome the noble Lord who has returned from that part of the world where our eyes are turned so continuously in these days.
Under present conditions considerable delay in the transit of all overseas surface mails is inevitable, especially in the case of those between this country and the Middle East for which the circuitous route via the Cape is almost the only one at present available. Sailings are irregular and are subject on occasion to delays which, owing to war conditions, cannot be avoided. In actual fact twelve surface mail consignments and thirty-three air mail consignments have been received in Cairo since January I and thirty-eight surface mails and sixty air mails have been received from the Middle East in the same period in this country. Mails for the Middle East Force sent by surface route take from six to thirteen weeks to reach the base, and, in addition, account must be taken of the time mails may be awaiting dispatch from this country, and the time occupied in distribution from the base to the addressee's unit, which, in view of the vast area covered by the Middle East Force, might be considerable—particu-

205
larly in the case of units situated in remote places. The units may frequently be from 700 to 2,000 miles from the base, and they are engaged in hard fighting and in a war of movement. Rail services hardly exist except in one or two parts of the area.
Mails from troops serving overseas in the homeward direction are subject to similar conditions; and in addition to the actual time taken in transit time must be added for the collection of correspondence from the various units into the Base Post Office, which may in some cases be considerable, as well as the time they may have to be held waiting for a ship. At the present moment there seems to be no hope of improving on these arrangements as far as surface mails arc concerned. The whole problem has been receiving the constant attention of the Departments concerned, as well as of the Overseas Mails Committee, and, in view of the impossibility of improving the position as regards surface mails, attention has been directed to the possibility of improving the air mail service.
When Italy entered the war, the Mediterranean was closed to British civilaviation, and since then air mail correspondence for the Middle East has had to be forwarded by sea to Africa for conveyance thence by air. At first it was necessary to send the air mails by sea to South Africa, but since the beginning of this year we have been able to dispatch them to West Africa for connection with the air services operating from there. The average time of transmission to the Base Army Post Office is now about 5½ weeks, but this does not include the time letters may be waiting for the next mail from this country, or the time taken, to distribute the correspondence after the arrival of the mails in the Middle East. This is still the position as regards the general air mail service for letters, and at present the aircraft accommodation is quite insufficient to provide a normal service by air throughout. Improvements have, however, I am delighted to say, been authorised recently, and some have, indeed, actually been introduced which enable a mail of restricted weight to be carried by air between this country and the Middle East.
A new air mail postcard to the Forces has been inaugurated. By restricting the
206
correspondence to thin postcards it has been found possible to reserve space to carry a mail of this kind by air all the way to the base. The first flight left on April 13 and reached the base on April 21, carrying just over 100,000 postcards, and since then other flights have been made and a total of well over half a million postcards have already been dispatched. There is every prospect that regular services of this kind can be maintained. It is also hoped to introduce shortly what is called an airgraph service from this country to the overseas base. So far as the outward service is concerned this is at present held up for technical reasons, but the first airgraph service in the inward direction, that is to say, from the Middle East to this country, comprising 50,000 airgraph letters, actually arrived on May 13, having been dispatched from the East on May 2. Under the airgraph scheme letters are written on special forms which are photographed on miniature films which are carried all the way by air to this country where enlargements are made for delivery. The films occupy an infinitesimal proportion of the space which would be taken up by an equivalent number of letters, and this is how it has been made possible to arrange for their carriage by aeroplane.
Yet another service has been introduced to help the troops in the homeward direction. This is known as the "rationed" lettercard service. These lettercards are now beginning to arrive: they are due to be conveyed partly by air and partly by surface mail, and should take about one month in transmission from the base. Now that the quicker airgraph service has been introduced the rationed lettercard service may be regarded as supplementary. The ordinary air mail service by sea between Africa and the United Kingdom is still available at the ordinary rates, which are substantially greater than those charged on these special services.
We have appreciated from the first that it is of the utmost importance to speed up communications, and essential to morale that contact with home is maintained. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me this opportunity of stating what steps are being taken, and we have every hope that under the new schemes in operation, or about to operate, contact will be greatly speeded up.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to Lord Ailwyn for his powerful support in this matter. It was more than usually valuable because it was support coming from the other end. I desire to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Croft, for his sympathetic and kindly reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Croft to an important matter. I thank him for the steps which he has taken, but I have had very serious complaints about the postal service with regard to West Africa. Lord Croft did not mention in his reply if he was going into this, so may I now draw his attention to the fact that precisely similar complaints to those which the noble Earl has mentioned in connection with the Middle East have been received from troops stationed in West Africa? I shall be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Croft, will look into this matter.
LORD CROFT: Yes, I certainly will.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ACCRUED PAY OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will arrange that such sums as accrue to Other Ranks prisoners of war in respect of non-allotted pay shall be treated as savings and credited to them, as such with the addition of interest at 2½ per cent., and whether in the case of Officer prisoners, some of whom have been able to instruct their bankers or agents to invest their accrued pay in Government securities, they will make arrangements through the appropriate channel to inform all officers that they can take advantage of this facility by communicating with their bankers or agents; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Motion on the Paper I thought that it was an agreed Motion, and I had reason to think so. The Motion raises a matter which, if it is agreed, is a comparatively small one though it affects more than 50,000 soldiers, sailors and
208
airmen. But if my Motion is resisted, it raises an issue of first-class importance upon which I beg your Lordships to give me your support. To put the matter very briefly, this is the way in which it arose. As Chairman of National Savings I am also Chairman of a Committee which seeks to encourage all persons serving the Crown in the three Services, to invest their money in national savings in some form—the Post Office, trustee savings banks, or National Savings Certificates. A special committee was also formed to deal with the three Services and I remained Chairman of that Committee. His late Majesty, King George V., was very insistent that every effort should be made to encourage soldiers, sailors and airmen of all ranks to save, and I had to report to him at frequent intervals on the progress made.
Well, it has gone very far. I cannot disclose the sums which the soldiers, sailors and airmen are saving because that is very rightly regarded as confidential, but I may say that in the Army the overwhelming majority of all units do belong to savings associations and lend their money to the Government in the same way as we are begging all other citizens to do. The same thing occurs in a very great degree, as my noble friend Lord Ailwyn will know, with sailors serving in His Majesty's ships, and also with the Royal Air Force. This Committee, trying to find some way in which still further to help the policy of lending, as the posters say, "to defend the right to be free," went into the question of what was happening to those soldiers who up to the moment of their disaster were keen savers. It was a strong Committee representing all the three Services. The Treasury was also represented. The Committee unanimously said that some steps should be taken to secure the savings of the soldier and of the officer too, and that they should receive the appropriate rate of interest, which might well be taken as being the 2½ per cent. of the Post Office Savings Bank. It seems so reasonable and, as I say, they were unanimous. They asked me to take up the matter, and that is why I put this Motion on the Paper.
I saw the Secretary of State for War and told him what I have told your Lordships. I understood from him that the case was so simple, especially in view of the fact which I am now going to state to

209
your Lordships, that it might be regarded as agreed. It was only two or three days ago that I got a letter in which he raises two points with which I have to deal, saying he would resist this Motion, and presumably on behalf of the other Services. That, my Lords, simply will not do. Lord North brook told me that the reason why we did not have revolutions in England was that no man could have a grievance without the chance of getting a hearing. When I asked how, he said, "A question in either House of Parliament can see justice done." I think your Lordships will agree—I do not put it too high—when I say that this is a case where this House of Parliament may properly intervene.
Now, owing to some extraordinary historical accident, which I well remember was brought to my notice when I was Secretary of State for War, when soldiers become prisoners of war—I do not know what the rule is in the Navy or the Air Force; as I think this dates back to before the Napoleonic wars, the Air Force did not exist then—the regulation, put shortly, is to the effect that the officer is regarded as innocent unless he is proved to be guilty, while the man is regarded as guilty until he is proved to be innocent. I am sure that will be news to most of your Lordships. So indeed it is. As a consequence, when the officer is taken prisoner all sums due to him by the War Office, after making deductions, taking those deductions away and also the allotments of pay or allocations to the wife or some other relative, arc paid into his account at his bank or agent. It used to be always Cox's, Cox & King, who are the people who have a great many officers' accounts, I suppose the majority of them. That is well understood. What happens is that the officer's father or wife, as the case may be, having had his authority before he left this country, applies to the bank for the money to be invested to the best advantage, practically always in Government securities, and that is done. Indeed, I was talking to the General Manager of Cox & King only yesterday and he was telling me about transactions which he had himself been carrying out that very day in investing the money at 2½ per cent.
In the case of the man as opposed to the officer it is not presumed, as in the case of the officer, that he is innocent,
210
and that therefore you pay him his money, which of course he can then spend by the direction of his relatives. Oh no! In the case of the man the money is only credited to him to be paid over after inquiry. I remember that when this was brought to my notice before the last war; I said: "Well, of course this is a most absurd differentiation between the officer and the man. Nobody could agree to that. Is there any practical difficulty?" They said there was none whatever. I saw the. Adjutant-General at that time and pointed out to him that in point of fact the poor man could not spend any money when he was in a prison camp, and that any allocations made to his wife or relatives we did in fact pay. Now that the matter has been raised it ought to be put right. Although it is a very wrong thing that you should treat officers and other ranks in these different fashions, there was no advantage to the officer, relatively none, until this arose.
As I say, when I spoke to the Secretary of State I presumed it was agreed, in fact he did agree. I put the case then to the Adjutant-General, who was good enough to give me various technical details which have helped me in bringing forward my Motion. I showed it to a Treasury official of renown, who said that of course obvious justice involves that officers and men must be treated alike, and the technical point based on the historical accident of 150 years ago could not conceivably stand in the way. So, as you see, I propose that it should be automatic, that the man's pay credited to him should carry interest at 2½ per cent., and, in order that the officers may be equally well off, that they should be informed through the appropriate channel that this can always be done. I went to see Lord Clarendon at the Red Cross Office and also Mr. Stanley Adams, whom the Government have appointed to look after the very difficult question of parcels for officers and the kindred question of the mails we have just been discussing. Lord Clarendon and Mr. Adams between them have effected an immense improvement in the regularity with which the parcels reach the prisoners, and we are all very grateful to them both. The reason I say that with reference to this Motion is that I wanted to know whether, as suggested by the War Office itself, it would be simple to communicate with the officers on a matter of this kind.

211
They told me they believed there would be in fact no difficulty and that it would be a very proper thing to do. They thought they could convey such messages and that the German Government or the Italian Government would make no difficulty about it.
Now, as I say, to my astonishment I find that this is objected to; indeed, I am asked not to pursue the matter. When, at the request of a very important Committee, I am asked to move on a matter which seems to be manifestly just, and then on some technical ground I am asked not to pursue it, my reaction is, as perhaps some of your Lordships may have observed, to ask the officials of the House to add at the foot of my Motion "and to move for Papers." I never in all my long Parliamentary experience, now stretching nearly forty years, have had such an astonishing request. Of course the matter must be ventilated in your Lordships' House, for your Lordships would wish to see justice done.
Let us see the grounds on which what I call the manifest justice of the case can be opposed. The first is that the man is not paid, and under the Pay Warrant it is clearly laid down that issues of pay during imprisonment depend upon circumstances, and, further, that on rejoining the Colours no further issue shall be made until it has been decided whether a court of inquiry ought to be held. Are we to understand that we are to make this condition in the case of the man, from warrant officer to private, while every officer receives the whole of the pay to which he is entitled, after the deductions to which I have referred? I do beg your Lordships to short-circuit this by saying that, whatever my noble friend Lord Croft may be asked to say by some financial pundit, you will not tolerate that. I ask you to say that there shall be no discrimination between officers and men in this matter. If a court of inquiry must be held before any sums are paid over in one case, that must be done in the other. This is a pure technicality, and I am astonished that the War Office, or anyone connected with it, should not have realised that such an impossible position ought not to be taken up.
The other point which is taken is that the man is, after all, not spending much
212
while he is a prisoner, and as, therefore, he will have a nest egg later on, why should he have, it is asked, 2½ per cent. added to it? Again, of course, the answer is that the officer can have his interest, and therefore that the man must have it too; but on that general point I do ask your Lordships to reflect that all these deferred payments by the State, except in a few small cases, which I hope my noble friend will not raise, are completely overshadowed by legislation to which your Lordships have recently agreed. It is manifestly just that if for some reason the State cannot pay money which it is adjudged that a citizen should ultimately receive, he should not be robbed of the interest due to him. Under the War Damage Act, as your Lordships may remember, when in the end the money is paid over to someone who has lost his property—no doubt after inquiry, as in this case, to make sure that everything is all right—he is paid interest at 2½ per cent. I think that we can dispose of that.
There is no other matter of substance which can possibly be raised. I do not wish to anticipate what my noble friend has to say, but I do beg of him to remember the importance of this point. This refers to all three Services, and every one of the representatives of those Services whom I have seen has told me that it is absolutely essential that in a matter like this officers and men should be treated exactly alike. The War Office, I know, has been meticulous in its care that there should be absolute equality of treatment between all ranks; but here we have, if this is resisted, a flagrant case which brings to light this extraordinary law under which the officer is adjudged to be innocent until proved guilty and the man adjudged to be guilty until proved innocent. My noble friend may ask me why I did not alter this myself, when I was Secretary of State. For the reason I have given, that no actual damage was done to anybody, I did not alter it, but I agree that it was a very wrong thing. I thought that nobody knew that this shocking law existed; but, now that it has come out, it must be put right. I would not suggest for a moment that the officer should be deprived of his pay, but I do say that the man should be credited with his pay and, as in the case of the officer who can communicate with his agent, he should have the requisite interest.
These officers and men are suffering grievous hardships, as we know, in these prison camps. The suggestion in the case of the men, that they are not to be paid a single penny because, after all, they may have done something disgraceful, is very wrong and very cruel, but it is made in black and white, and I have quoted the words. In modern mechanised warfare it may happen that the most courageous men, who would never surrender in ordinary circumstances, are absolutely compelled to do so, because, in the war of tanks, when there is no more petrol for your tank you cannot get out and try to beat against the opposing tank with your fists, or even with your rifle. Surrender may be impossible to avoid in this war of incredibly swift movement, as happened in France, and as happened on a gigantic scale to Italians in the recent war. The men who have surrendered, who may be the most courageous men in the world, arc under this shocking besmirchment—if there be such a word—which is brought to the surface by this fact to which I have called your Lordships' attention. I hope that I may have your Lordships' support, unless, as I hope still more, the noble Lord will say that this wrong shall be put right.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I received notice of this Motion by the noble Lord only towards the latter end of last week, and on Friday night and Saturday I was engaged, as he was, on the War Weapons campaign. I was unable, therefore, to look into the matter, as I told him yesterday morning. I had no opportunity of consulting with the other Services, which are, of course, equally concerned in this matter. It is true, as the noble Lord suggests, that officers' pay is paid into their bankers, and in cases where their liabilities, including the support of their families, permit, there is nothing whatever to prevent them, investing their pay in Government stock. We do everything we can to encourage the support of the War Savings movement throughout the Army, and as far as that is concerned I shall certainly consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord in the second part of his Motion.
The proposal in the first half of his Motion, however, unlike other proposals which we all welcome for assisting the national war effort, would be of no financial advantage to the State. The allowances
214
payable in respect of the wife and children of other ranks, together with the allotments from their pay, continue to be issued while the man is a prisoner of war. Such balances of pay as remain are book entries, involving no payment from the Exchequer until they are finally drawn; and the noble Lord's proposal would in fact merely involve payment of interest by the State on those balances. Under existing regulations, the pay of prisoners, apart from allotments to their families, is credited to them, and they draw the accrued sum at the conclusion of the war, unless there is proved reason why they should not receive such payment. Meanwhile, the allowances to wives and children are paid, and the men themselves, who, unlike their comrades at home, cannot handle their pay, are in most cases saving up a considerable sum for the day when they come back. I must point out that there are day-today balances on all soldiers' accounts, and there may be other cases where such balances are in fact considerable. I have heard no suggestion that interest should be paid on these balances, nor as a matter of financial policy could I accept such a suggestion.
I just want to add one word, if I may. My noble friend quoted the case of interest paid on war damage, which he seemed to regard as a precedent. I assure him that that is in no way comparable. In the case of war damage, a house is destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, and the unfortunate owner has to secure and pay for alternative accommodation, but all the time he is kept out of funds which he might use in finding alternative premises. Your Lordships will agree that that case cannot be regarded as analogous or as applicable to the case referred to in the question. My noble friend mentioned he had had conversations with various persons on this subject. I am sure everyone would always receive him with great pleasure when he is advocating any question on behalf of the Army. I fancy these questions cannot have been looked into, with all the difficulties that exist, in the course of casual conversation round, perhaps, a Committee table. I know my noble friend feels very strongly on this subject. He himself was one of the few people who found there was a case to be looked into when he was Secretary of State, but all through the last war,

215
if this is regarded as such an injustice, I would point out he did not take any steps.
LORD MOTTISTONE: It did not arise.
LORD CROFT: The question of discrimination, which is the whole case as between officers and men, stood all the time he was in office and all through the last war. I would merely add this. We do everything we possibly can to support the War Savings movement in the Army as in the other Services. There may have been some misunderstanding when this was raised at the Committee. It may have been thought that there was this money lying idle either at the bankers or in regimental funds. That, of course, your Lordships will appreciate is not the case. The money has not been paid over, and therefore, instead of adding to our financial strength, the proposal might act the other way.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but my colleagues have a view to express, and I feel I should put it quite briefly. It is clear that there is this difference in the treatment of officers and men who may be taken prisoner during the course of the war—that the officers, if they so wish, are able to invest their pay in Government bonds and draw interest at the prevailing rates. Other ranks on the other hand only receive the capital sums that accrue to them during the time they are prisoners without any interest during the period of the war. In the case of a longish war, this difference may be very considerable, because the sum due to the private or N.C.O. who is a prisoner in Germany or Italy mounts up, and the interest that would be payable may therefore be quite a considerable addition to what he would otherwise receive. If the facts are as I have stated, as the result of following this debate closely, it would seem that there is a differentiation between the treatment of officers and men, and I wish to say that my noble friends and I support the noble Lord who has moved the Motion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, may I appeal to the Government to look at this thing from a practical point of view? Many of us have not known that there was a differentiation made between officer prisoners and those in the ranks who are
216
prisoners, but apparently that has been the practice—at any rate, it has been existing in our system unknown to us. Now that we know of this injustice to the men, surely it is for the Government to remedy it and to consider how best that can be done. It ought to be removed. The answer which the noble Lord has given to the case made out by my noble and gallant friend behind me does not appear to be an answer at all. He has suggested that there is no money lying idle. What is the ordinary custom in the banks? A person has a credit. He has made arrangement with his bankers, perhaps, in time of war to leave a sum on deposit at 1 per cent. for a definite period. The money is not handed over to the individual, but merely credited on a bit of paper, and only when it has matured to the individual at the end of the period, when he asks for his deposit with interest, does the money reappear.
Exactly the same thing happens in the Post Office Savings Bank, where there are thousands of accounts. As anybody knows who has been Postmaster-General, these amounts are not handed over to the Post Office in order to be idle. When the individual wants to draw his money out, he gets a paper credit, and the money is then found by the Treasury. It is not a question of money lying idle, and it seems to me that the case put up by the War Office in answer to my noble friend is not really an answer at all. I appeal to the representatives of the Government on that Bench to undertake to look into this matter further so that we should not be pressed to divide the House on a matter of this character.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am astounded at the information which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has given us to-day. It seems to me a most appalling thing that men who are fighting with their officers are not treated in exactly the same way in a matter of this nature. It is to me an astounding thing. It seems to cast a stigma on the men. Why should they be treated as if they might be cowards when we know perfectly well that it is a very rare thing to find a coward among British soldiers? I appeal most strongly to the Government to reconsider their attitude, and I certainly must support this Motion of my noble friend. I appeal to the War Office to take this matter up and put it right, and to do so

217
immediately. I am quite certain, in view of this debate, which will get wide publicity, that there will be strong feeling throughout the whole country.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, as a serving officer I am quite amazed at this disclosure this afternoon, and I am sure all serving officers would feel that they should not have any advantage over their men. They would like to be treated in exactly the same way. The payment of officers' pay through agents is only a convenience adopted by the Service Departments, and the fact that the men are paid through the Paymaster should have no bearing on the matter. I feel very strongly, and I must support Lord Mottistone's Motion.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone has rendered a great service in bringing to light a fact that was quite unknown previously, and the noble Lord, Lord Croft, if he will forgive my saying so, did not give any reply at all on this point of discrimination between officers and men. He did not even attempt to reply. He merely stated the fact that the officers in this regard had certain privileges denied to the men, but no justification was given for the fact and no reason offered for not redressing it. The noble Lord said that if you are to regard these balances, as they are called, as investments, and pay interest upon them, why should you not be called upon to pay the same on all balances which stand in the names of various persons or institutions in the books of the Treasury? The answer, of course, is, that this is not an ordinary balance. It does not in any way resemble an ordinary balance; it is pay that is withheld owing to the fact that the man is a prisoner of war and unable to control his expenditure. That is not in the least like an ordinary balance which is just awaiting disposal by the person to whom it belongs.
The prisoner of war is not able to make use of it. He is not able to dispose of it on account of the fact of his imprisonment. Now a man who is not a prisoner receives his pay and can invest it, and, as Lord Mottistone said, very often does. Millions of pounds are invested in that way, and the men who do so invest receive the interest, which they may obtain after the war is over as a lump sum; but the prisoner is unable to do this, and, consequently, the Treasury does not pay over the money,
218
and, through not paying over the money, it is in exactly the same financial position as if it had the money put at its disposal by the soldier. In the one case the soldier gives his pay to the Treasury in the form of an investment at a modest 2½ per cent. In the other case the Treasury does not have to pay any interest on these, possibly, very large amounts. The financial effect is really the same as if the money had been borrowed free of interest. The money having been withheld from the soldier, he is not able to invest it.
The Treasury has, in effect, the use of that sum through not paying it over although it has legally been earned, and is due. Consequently, it is not a question of imposing a new charge upon the Treasury but rather of requiring the Treasury not to escape a charge which in normal circumstances it would have to pay. The noble Lord said: "After all, this was not done in the last war, and why should we do it now?" Surely that is not an argument that could be accepted by your Lordships' House. If such a grievance existed in the last war and was not brought to light and remedied, that is no reason for saying: "This is a precedent which we mean to follow; it is an injustice, but let the injustice continue." I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on consideration, will see that the sense of at all events a large part of the House is against him in this matter and will give it further consideration.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I be permitted to say one or two further words? I have been very interested in the debate. I told your Lordships that the whole question was only brought before me yesterday, and that I had had no opportunity of consulting other Departments. I learn from the speeches that have been made that the subject is regarded from various angles. I want, however, to make one thing absolutely clear, not because there is any doubt about it, and that is that there is no question of any discrimination in favour of the officer as against the man in the matter of pay. They both get their pay. The only difference is that the prisoner of war's pay is accrued for him and is handed over to him at the end of the war. The point of the noble Lord is whether the prisoner of war should receive 2½ per cent. interest which officers get should they, after

219
providing for their families, have any spare cash to invest. That really is the point at issue. There is no other point, but the fact remains that it is clear, after what the noble Lord who brought this matter before the House has said, that many of your Lordships appear to share the view that this question should be looked into further. I am prepared, in the circumstances, to ask my right honourable friend if he will look into the question again in the light of the information which has been disclosed to-day.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, that is a most astonishing suggestion to me. I should suppose as I look round your Lordships' House that every single one of you takes the view, now that the matter has been raised, that this differentiation between officer and man should not be allowed to continue for another moment. I gather that that is the universal view in the House. I have not observed one single note of opposition to that. It is so manifestly fair. You all say, "Why were we not told of this before?" As this bombshell has been sprung upon you and as we are all absolutely at one, I cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who himself has said that he has only just heard of the matter. In his reply he made certain financial remarks which have no bearing whatever upon the case. As we are all of one mind, and also as all three Services are involved, I suggest that whoever is acting as Leader of the House should say on behalf of the Government "I appreciate that with regard to all three Services all differentiation between officer and men in this matter of officer and soldier prisoners shall come to an end, and we will carry that out." That would meet the case. If the accrued pay of these men, which they cannot touch, is put into the Post Office Savings Bank as a separate account, which is the course I would recommend because it would entail very little extra clerical trouble, that would make the sense of fairness complete.
The point is that both officers and men should have exactly the same status in this matter. Whether you pay it by regarding it as a balance or do as I suggest, pay it in the Post Office Savings Bank, is a matter of detail which can easily be settled. If the representative of
220
the Government will say: "We quite appreciate the point that there is an injustice and that there shall be no differentiation from to-day onwards between officers and men," I will at once withdraw the Motion and leave the Government to carry it out in all three Services. I do not accept the view that there is any reason for leaving the matter over for further consideration, because we are all agreed and are of one way of thinking. If the noble Lord likes to find himself alone in the Lobby, as would happen—and it would not be the first time he has shown that courage which we all admire—he may do so, but if so he will show that he is very misguided in this matter.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, may I say that I have given the most explicit undertaking? Views have been expressed from so many quarters of the House that I will at once approach my right honourable friend and ask him to reconsider the question. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with all his years of experience of Parliamentary life, will realise that one could not do more than give the undertaking which I have already given.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, may I say one word? I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and to that of my noble friend behind me, but surely we must be very careful what we do in a matter of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, have pressed your Lordships—not so much His Majesty's Government but your Lordships—to take a certain action, and that is to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to take a certain course with reference to the pay of the soldier prisoner of war. I understand that his pay is withheld for the time being by the Treasury. This is surely a question of Privilege. I think if we are not careful we may very well receive, to put it quite vulgarly, a snub. It is a question of Privilege, and surely my noble friend Lord Croft has gone as far as anybody on the Government Bench could do in this House, by giving an undertaking that he would take the whole matter into further consideration and bring it before His Majesty's Ministers. I do ask your Lordships to be careful what you do.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of your

221
Lordships. I do emphatically say, perhaps with more vehemence than you are accustomed to in this House, that we must put this matter right. I remain of that opinion. I also realise that the noble Lord has said he will reconsider the matter. I thought he had asked me to reconsider it, but no doubt he meant he would reconsider it. Very likely I misunderstood him. I understand, however, that the answer in the negative does not stand, and that further consideration will be given to the matter. Therefore, I will raise the question again at a convenient time and I will ask leave now to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT FOR MERCANTILE MARINE.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to call attention to the fact that sick and casualties of the Merchant Navy are not so well catered for under the Ministry of Health Emergency Hospital Scheme as are patients from the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, who are classed as "Service sick" and "Service casualties"; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Motion which I have put on the Paper will not take a very long time, but I feel quite sure that I shall have your Lordships' interest and sympathy for the points I am going to raise. Lately, we have heard a good deal about the Battle of the Atlantic. That battle of course has been raging ever since war started. In fact the first incident in the war, the sinking of the "Athenia," was part of the Battle of the Atlantic. The importance of keeping our shipping moving on the ocean routes has been impressed upon us, by all sorts of speakers and writers, starting with the Prime Minister and working downwards, and they have all spoken of our sea communications as the life line of the nation. But ocean routes are no good without ships, and ships are no good without men. We must realise the fact that upon the officers and men of the Mercantile Navy depends whether we are going to be able to fight through this war to victory.
We owe a great deal to these men, and they are certainly not men who ought to be discriminated against as they are
222
under the Ministry of Health Emergency Hospital Scheme. Although the points I shall mention may not be considered very important, yet I contend that no sort of discrimination ought to exist. It is the petty things in life that cause the greatest irritation. The root of the trouble lies in the fact that they are placed in a special category. Officers and men in the Mercantile Marine are not classed as "Service sick" or "Service casualties" when they go into hospital under the Ministry of Health Emergency Hospital Scheme. Why that should be so it is very difficult to understand. The only difference I can suggest is that whereas men of the recognised Fighting Services go forth to meet the enemy with the most perfect and up-to-date equipment that can be supplied, the merchant sailor goes to sea in ships which are often old, slow, not very well found, and practically unarmed, an easy prey to attack from the air, on the surface, or under the water. However, as the seamen are not classed as "Service sick" or "Service casualties" they do not get the Service ration when they go into hospital, whereas men of the three Fighting Services do.
Therefore, you may have the absurd position of men who have contracted the same illness through the same cause—a soldier, a naval man, an airman and a merchant seaman—the first three getting full rations, while the fourth, the merchant sailor, has to be content with the civilian ration. In addition to this, through not being classed as "Service" merchant seamen are not able to benefit by the distribution of duty-free tobacco and cigarettes made through the war organisation of the British Red Cross and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. That is not, your Lordships may be sure, because of any want of sympathy on the part of those bodies, or of the people who subscribe to them, but because the Lords of the Treasury, through the Customs and Excise authorities, object to this grant to merchant seamen.
Again, in certain circumstances merchant seamen are supposed to contribute to the cost of their maintenance in hospital—a charge unknown against a naval rating. A circular issued by the Ministry of Health last April—No. 2346A—laid down that officers and men of the Mercantile Marine should be admitted for

223
treatment into the Emergency Medical Services hospitals for ordinary sickness or injury when away from home. In such cases they should be asked to contribute towards the cost of their maintenance. They are eligible for free treatment for injury sustained in the course of their duty or sustained at the hands of the enemy. The sub-committee of the Committee of Voluntary Organisations for forwarding the welfare of seamen in port—this sub-committee looks after points connected with the health of seamen—at once took up the matter, and passed a unanimous resolution asking that these men should be included as "Service sick" or "Service casualties" and treated "no less well than the men of His Majesty's Fighting Services". This was duly submitted to the Seamen's Welfare Board, and considered by them, but nothing tangible has resulted.
The Seamen's Hospital Society, in which I happen to be interested, was also intrigued by this matter and asked for a definition of the word "injury" as used in the Ministry's circular. This was not surprising, because the Seamen's Hospital Society has for 120 years been giving free treatment, not only in illness but during convalescence; that is, keeping men until they are fit once more to face the hardships of their calling. The answer received by the Society to their question was to the effect that "unless injured as the result of enemy action, or unless injured by anything which happened at any point of time when the man was on duty," he was to be asked to contribute towards his maintenance. Can the "point of time" be determined at which a man contracts pneumonia or rheumatism, both illnesses to which sailors are very prone, or can there be a point of time when heart affection or eye strain or nervous spasm starts? The better the man, the harder it is to determine that, because he would be less likely to report sick until he was compelled.
As for the second point, is there any time when a man in a ship is not on duty? Every member of a crew of a merchant ship is liable to be called at any moment, and all are equally exposed to sudden and violent danger A workman going to his work and getting injured is not held under the law to have any claim on his employer for compensation under the
224
Workmen's Compensation Act, but a soldier going down to a port of embarkation who meets with an injury is considered to be on active service just as if he were in the front line. A Home Guard, however, who is injured is not regarded as being on duty even though he is in uniform unless he is acting under the orders of an officer. Where does the merchant sailor come in? He ought to know. It is really encouragement that these men want at the present time—deeds, not words. They rather distrust words.
There is nothing that has been written or said in praise of the merchant seamen in this war, that was not said or written in the last war, and yet ten years after its conclusion the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine went through a period of suffering probably never equalled in the annals of our history, and no helping hand was ever extended to them. The recent forecast of certain steps about to be taken to better the lot of the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine is only going to be a war-time measure. It can only be hoped that what is found good will be perpetuated after the war is over. I feel that I am not really asking for much when I ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government to say that all these petty restrictions will be swept away, and that from henceforth the officers and men of the Merchant Navy will be placed on exactly the same footing for hospital treatment as their comrades of the Royal Navy. If that cannot be promised I suggest that some very good reasons should be offered to your Lordships' House. Your Lordships are entitled to know what are those reasons. To act as I suggest would be some slight but tangible recognition of these men who are doing and daring so much and who throughout their long history have never let down their country in the hour of need. I beg to move.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I have never before presumed to address your Lordships a second time in one afternoon, and I hope that I may be forgiven on this occasion. I have not had time to study the subject on which the noble and gallant Earl has just addressed you, but my work for the last eighteen months has brought me into very intimate association with the officers and men of the Merchant Navy and I feel it would be unbecoming if I were to keep my seat and not get up to

225
give any support to the very eloquent plea of the noble and gallant Earl. Of all the magnificent bodies of men that there are to-day I do not think any can compare with the officers and men of the Merchant Navy, and I should like to join my plea with that of the noble and gallant Earl that no discrimination shall ever be shown between officers and men of the Merchant Service and officers and men of the Royal Navy.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, under the gallant leadership of an Admiral of the Fleet, followed by a Post Captain, I feel that a humble Lieutenant-Commander must join in supporting this very good cause. I spoke earlier this afternoon against any differentiation being made between officer and man, and I also feel most strongly that there should be no differentiation between the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine. The sailor is a man who likes what is called his "moan," and if in hospital two sailors, one a merchant seaman and the other a naval man, were to find themselves in beds, side by side, these differences would soon come to light, for the merchant seaman would have a just grievance and one which would create a great deal of ill-feeling. I also have not had time to study this subject, but I feel confident in supporting the noble and gallant Earl.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, in answer to the noble and gallant Earl, I wish to say that officers and men of the Merchant Service receive the same medical treatment under the Emergency Hospital Scheme as members of the Fighting Services. They receive treatment at the cost of the Government for injuries due to enemy action and also for injuries sustained in the course of their duty even if not due to enemy action. Injuries would include illnesses arising directly from enemy action or the performance of their duty, such as pneumonia contracted through immersion in the sea or exposure in an open boat. This means that they get all the advantages of the nation-wide organisation of the Emergency Hospital Scheme, equally with those Service patients who are treated in civilian hospitals. They are admitted or transferred to the hospital best suited for dealing with the trouble from which they are suffering, and are sent, if necessary, to special centres, such as orthopaedic hospitals, head centres, chest centres, and so on,
226
where first-class specialists in their particular subject attend to them. If they need convalescent treatment after a period in hospital they may be sent to one of the Red Cross auxiliary hospitals in the Scheme.
We have gone further. If a seaman is suffering from an ordinary illness not directly arising from his calling and is away from his home town he will be admitted to a hospital in the Emergency Scheme in the same way. The only difference from the Services in this case is that unless he belongs to a contributory scheme which will pay towards his treatment, he will be asked to make a contribution according to ordinary hospital practice, but the Government pay the rest of the cost. It is considered that there is no hardship on the Merchant Navy, in view of the rates of their pay, in making them to make a contribution in this type of case, which really has no direct connection with war service. Where a seaman is in his home town there is no need to bring him specially into the Emergency Scheme, because his own local hospital will admit him in the ordinary way if he needs inpatient treatment, and the ordinary financial arrangements of the hospital will apply. Apart from this point, it will thus be seen that the Government bear the whole cost of treating the personnel of the Merchant Marine in hospitals in this country. A circular was sent to all hospitals in April outlining the scheme and it should now be in working order all over the country.
The noble Lord may also have in mind the question of rations for men in hospital. Indeed, he mentioned that point. It is true that, at the moment, the Service patient is entitled under the Regulations to a rather higher meat ration than the merchant seamen, but the Minister of War Transport has asked the Minister of Food to consider whether the Merchant Navy cannot be put on the same footing as the Royal Navy in this respect. In any case, we feel sure that both classes of patients are, in fact, getting the food that current supplies allow and their medical condition requires. With regard to tobacco, the Treasury have permitted the British Red Cross Society, the Navy League and the Service Comforts Funds to purchase in this country cigarettes and tobacco duty

227
free for distribution to sick and wounded Service personnel. It seems almost a crime to quote a precedent of the last war but that, in fact, is what did happen in a similar situation. That is the precedent we have before us, and I will certainly bring my noble friend's remarks on that subject to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, that is a very satisfactory reply in some respects, but not so satisfactory in others. I would point out that I am asking that men of the Merchant Navy should have the same treatment as men of the Fighting Services during the war, and while they are serving. You do not, in the Royal Navy, have to contract pneumonia through immersion in the sea or exposure in an open boat in order to get treatment at the cost of the Government; you can contract it in many other ways. It is one of the most prevalent diseases known to the hospitals which have particularly to deal with seamen. Therefore I ask that a merchant seaman, whether he has fallen sick or been injured, shall, so long as he is a merchant seaman
228
who is carrying out the duties of his calling, be treated in the same way as men of the Fighting Services and, in particular, in the same way as men of the Royal Navy. That is to say, I ask that these merchant seamen shall get free treatment whenever they are ill for almost any disease that you can name, and that, if necessary, they shall be taken into hospitals and looked after. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, for having said that he will call attention to the question of the distribution of cigarettes and tobacco. I would also beg him, at the same time, to suggest that these men who fall sick in the country's service should have free treatment for their ailments even if these cannot be traced back to a given "point of time," to quote the words used in that letter from the Ministry of Health. I had a conversation only this morning with the secretary of a hospital and he bore out everything which I have said. I do not wish to go further with this matter, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.