Sitting of 24 February 1915

Preamble
The House mot at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL TOWERS) BILL.— [By Order.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Objection taken.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Maclean): As the hon. Member has objected to the Second Reading, perhaps I may inform him that parts 3 and 4 have been withdrawn by the promoters. I think that perhaps may meet his objection.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
  Message from The Lords,—That they have agreed to—
  Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

INTERNATIONAL OPIUM CONFERENCE (MISCELLANEOUS No. 4, 1915).
Copy presented of Correspondence respecting the Third International Opium Conference held at The Hague, June, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 168–170, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee,
"That, in the case of the Halifax Corporation [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
246
with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that Tramways Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 21 are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
Resolution agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PRIZE SHIPS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the three prize ships which have been lying at Cape Town since last August cannot be at once sent on to their respective destinations under prize crews and there unloaded, and the British cargo delivered to the British consignees and the doubtful or foreign cargo landed and left for future decision, and the ships then utilised for commerce, in which they are so needed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not possible to undertake the expense and risk of dealing with other people's property in this manner, unless the owners, or someone on their behalf, will indemnify the Admiralty against expense and loss. Arrangements with this object in view are practically complete, and, as a matter of fact, one vessel—the "Birkenfels"—was on the 11th instant handed over to the representative of the shipping company which has been entrusted with the contract for the purpose of being prepared for the voyage. Arrangements for the other vessels are in progress. It should be understood, that this procedure involves a departure from procedure previously observed in regard to prize ships, and the arrangements have involved a great deal of telegraphing and communication with various authorities.
    Mr. FELL: Is not our complaint against the Government that under the exceptional circumstances which prevail exceptional steps should have been taken to utilise these steamers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have done so in this case.

    NAVAL OFFICERS KILLED (EDUCATION OF SONS).
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any arrangement or plan has been made or considered with regard to the education of the young sons of officers who have been killed in action or have died in the Service since the War began; and if such young gentlemen will, if they elect to serve in the Royal Navy, be taken at Osborne or elsewhere, and at what age and what the necessary formalities will be?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is now under consideration.

    H.M.S. "VIKNOR" (GUNNERYINSTRUCTOR W. H. BOLAND).
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the body of Gunnery-Instructor W. H. Boland, late of His Majesty's ship "Viknor," was found on the coast of Ireland on 11th February and buried, and that on 15th February the Admiralty, in reply to numerous letters from Mrs. Boland offering to pay all the expenses of bringing back the body, if found, and after sending Mrs. Boland a form, wrote that if the body were found she should immediately be informed; and if he will see that such negligence on the part of the Admiralty shall be made impossible in the future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Mrs. Boland was informed of the death of her husband on the 28th January, and on the 10th instant a letter was received from her requesting that the body, if recovered, might be sent home for burial. A reply was sent stating that in the event of recovery and definite identification she would be communicated with. The first suggestion that the body might have been recovered reached the Admiralty in a letter from Mrs. Boland on the 16th instant, which referred to a Press notice of the recovery of two bodies at Colonsay. Inquiries were
    248
    set on foot at the Admiralty, and the Department was on the point of writing to her to say that there was no confirmation in the office, when a communication was received on the 20th instant from the Procurator Fiscal stating that a police report had reached him on the 19th instant from which it appeared that a body believed to be that of Boland was found on the Island of Colonsay, Argyllshire, on 4th February, and interred in the Kilcoran Cemetery. Colonsay.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PENSIONERS).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether those men of the Royal dockyards who have been pensioned since 1st October or earlier and who have since been working in the dockyard owing to loyalty on their part and the pressure of work, will be entitled to the full benefit of the recent rise of wages from the 1st October or other date front which the increases may start?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. FALLE: Does that mean full benefits, including pension and bonus?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They will get the full benefit of the increase as from 31st October, if they were working at that time.
    Mr. FALLE: That does not answer the question with regard to pension and bonus. It only means the pay. I asked whether they would get full benefits?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question about the bonus. I do not know what bonus he refers to. They will get just the same as the ordinary dockyard employés. They will get the increase as from 31st October last.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can present to the Governments of neutral countries a comparative statement showing, on the evidence now in his possession, the differences in the treatment of British prisoners of war by the German Government and of German prisoners of war here?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): Full statements as to the treatment of

    249
    German prisoners of war in this country were supplied to the United States Ambassador for the information of the German Government on 2nd and 14th December, and on 3rd February a further supplementary statement on the subject was supplied to the United States Embassy. The United States Ambassador was asked on 9th January to obtain from the German Government answers to a series of questions relating to the treatment of British prisoners of war in Germany. No reply has yet been received to this request. An urgent reminder on the subject has already been sent to the United States Ambassador.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask whether such statements are supplied to other neutral Powers as well as to the United States?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I think it was supplied to the United States of America to be conveyed to the German Government.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will a copy be laid upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is there any reason why the same statement should not be presented to the Governments of other neutral States to produce a moral effect?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I think there would be no objection, if they wanted it.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the time has arrived when the German Government should be given to understand that unless British prisoners of war, both military and civil, receive better treatment in Germany than they do at present, steps will be taken by His Majesty s Government to treat German prisoners of war in this country in a less lenient manner than heretofore?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This matter is under the consideration of the military authorities.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that £20,000 has been expended on Donington Hall in order to accommodate interned German officers; whether British prisoners in Germany have received bad treatment and frequent insult; whether British prisoners are worse treated than prisoners of the Allies; and, if so, will he state why
    250
    such a large sum of public money has been used for providing extra comforts for Gorman prisoners?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): As my hon. Friend stated yesterday in a written answer to a question by the hon. Member for Prestwich, the approximate expenditure on Donington Hall is £13,000, of which about £4,000 is for furniture. Information received from unofficial sources gives ground for apprehension that British prisoners in German hands are not so well treated as they should be. Statements to the effect that this treatment is harsher than that meted out to prisoners from the Allies are not sufficiently well established to allow me to speak with any certainty on this point. The general treatment seems to vary considerably in the different camps.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is it a fact that these German officers, to save the trouble of walking a mile, were taken by motor car, whereas the National Reservists who were guarding them had to walk?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware. I will make inquiries.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Was it necessary for the treatment of these German officers that a large country house should be taken for them at this very large expense?
    Mr. TENNANT: There was no other accommodation available. Nearly all the available accommodation for prisoners has been used, particularly for aliens, inasmuch as we had to commandeer ships.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether at one of the detention camps German prisoners of war are allowed to drill under their own instructors with dummy rifles; and whether some other form of exercise will be substituted for this practice?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, as it relates apparently to an incident at the Knockaloe Camp, Isle of Man, which is under the supervision of the Destitute Aliens Committee. About a month ago my attention was drawn to the fact that some of the prisoners were using in their

    251
    combined exercises pieces of wood which they had cut to resemble rifles. I gave instructions at once that the practice should be stopped.
    Mr. MOUNT: Are they still engaged in military drill?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. They are engaged in combined exercises, but I do not know how far they resemble or how far they differ from drill.
    Colonel YATE: Cannot some useful work be given to these people that will be of benefit to the country?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. Every step is taken in order to find useful work for them; still, exercise is not a bad thing.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman supply some of our soldiers with boxing gloves to keep them in order?
    Mr. FELLasked what is done with the pay of officers who have been taken prisoner; why this pay, or at any rate half of it, is not paid to the wives and families of such officers; and if great hardship, and even distress, exists in many cases owing to the fact that no payment is made to them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): The pay of officers who have been taken prisoners continues to be drawn by their agents and presumably is credited to their private accounts. The War Office has no power to determine the conditions under which wives or others may draw on officers' private accounts, but it is understood that the officers have generally made such arrangements as they thought desirable, and no cases of hardship of the kind suggested are known to the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: Have the officers drawn their full pay for the whole time?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot say.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked what steps the Government are taking to obtain the release or mutual interchange of medical prisoners of war?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: I would refer the hon Member to the answer returned on the 22nd instant to the hon. Member for Hitchin.

    LAGOS (CONGESTION OF PRODUCE).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the congestion of produce on the Nigerian Railway; and whether he has considered the possibility of utilising between Lagos and this country some of the Woermann liners now in the possession of the Government, the cessation of the sailings of which has produced the congestion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am aware that recently there was considerable congestion of produce at Lagos awaiting shipment. Instructions were sent on the 23rd January that the prize ships captured at Duala, which are being sent to England by the Admiralty for adjudication, should land any cargo intended for West Africa at West African ports and utilise any space so left for shipping West African produce to this country.

    CONGO.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the complaints of Mr. W. J. St. Clair, who alleges differential ill-treatment by Belgian officials; if he has any official information showing that the official perpetrating the outrage is a German; and that British residents have been deprived of all arms at Sekania, leaving them without any defence against wild beasts or hostile persons?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: As regards the last part of the question, the Acting Consul-General at Boma reported on 9th December that the disarming of two British subjects at Manyambo, in the Kilo district, about which a complaint had been made, was due to a general order issued by the Vice-Governor-General of the Eastern Province of the Congo applying to everyone alike, and that the Vice-Governor-General stated that there was no fear of attack either by natives or wild beasts in that district. I have received no information as to any complaints having been made by Mr. W. J. St. Clair.

    BRITISH EAST AFRICA (Mr. COLE'S DEPORTATION).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the hon. Mr. Cole has now been permitted to

    253
    return to East Africa; and, if not, whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case the acquittal of the hon. Mr. Cole by his fellow countrymen of the offence charged against him, the services he has rendered East Africa and might more than ever render, he will permit him to return to that country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I anticipated my hon. Friend's wish by five months. I revoked the deportation order in September last, and I believe Mr. Cole returned immediately to East Africa.

    TOGOLAND (OFFICIAL DESPATCHES).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the official despatches from the Commander of the Expeditionary Force in Togoland will be published?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am in communication with the Secretary of State for War with regard to the publication of these despatches, and hope shortly to arrive at a decision in the matter.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause the donations of companies and firms to the National Relief Fund to be exempt from Income Tax; and whether individuals contributing to that fund may receive similar treatment?
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and, if so, what instructions have been issued to surveyors of taxes as to allowance by way of deduction from assessments for Income Tax and Super-tax of contributions to the National Relief Fund and other similar funds such as is prescribed in respect of like contributions to ordinary hospitals?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am afraid I cannot see my way to authorise any exception in the case of the funds named to the general rule that donations for charitable purposes are not admissible as deductions in computing liability to Income Tax or Super-tax.

    UNITED STATES (IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the figures of the imports into the United States of America for the month of January; and if he can give any explanation of the cause of the increase in the imports from Germany and the decrease in the imports from Great Britain in that month?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have seen a summary statement of the figures in the Press, but I have received no details at present. I have, however, caused inquiries on the subject to be made through His Majesty's Embassy at Washington, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. FELLasked the price of the equivalent of the four-pound loaf of bread at the most recent date available in London, Paris, and New York, respectively?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The price of 4 lbs. of wheaten bread yesterday was 8d. in London, 7¾d. in Paris, and from 11½d. to 1s. 5½d. in New York. It will be understood, however, that these comparisons are subject to the fact that there is no international standard quality.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the rise of prices in Ireland and the consequent suffering amongst the dependants of men at the front as well as others; and whether, in regard to this increase of prices, the Government will adopt and promote practical measures to alleviate the existing misery and to remove, by legislative action if necessary, such causes as are artificial or avoidable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As was recently stated in the Debate on the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Hull, the Government are taking various practical measures with a view to dealing with such causes as are referred to in the question. They are quite prepared to take legislative action for this purpose, should such be found to be necessary and advisable.

    TALLOW (EXPORTS TO HOLLAND).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in spite of the prohibition of the export of edible tallow, allowing non-edible to be exported, a quantity goes to Holland and is made edible by a simple process of refining, the only result being that the English soapmaker is deprived of his raw material; and whether he will stop the export of all grades?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Member must be misinformed. The export of animal tallow is prohibited to all destinations except under licence, and I understand that this prohibition is held to cover non-edible as well as edible tallow.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not a fact that non-edible tallow goes out under licence?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should have to make inquiries about that question.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNCILLORS' QUALIFICATIONS).
    Mr. PERCY HARRISasked the President of the Local Government Board whether a person will lose the qualification for being elected a councillor or alderman of a county council or borough council which is conferred by the County and Borough Councils (Qualification) Act, 1914, by reason only of his absence on naval or military duties during the qualifying period; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation to prevent such loss of qualification?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The qualification for being elected a councillor or alderman of a county or borough council, which was provided by the Act of last Session, is an alternative qualification intended mainly to meet the case of women candidates. The case of a man absent on naval or military service who desired to become a councillor or alderman and who did not possess the ordinary burgess qualification would, I imagine, be a very rare one, and, as at present advised, my right hon. Friend hardly thinks it necessary to introduce legislation on the subject.

    ALIENS.
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many naturalised Germans or persons born in England of German parents have a double nationality, and would be recognised in Germany as German subjects?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no information available on this point, and as it could only be obtained lay application in each alleged case to the German authorities, I am not in a position to furnish the information to the hon. Member.
    Mr. INGLEBY: May I ask whether a German naturalised in this country becomes ipso facto denaturalised in Germany?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe there are certain cases in which a person does not become ipso facto denaturalised in Germany. But this is a question of the construction of German law, and I am quite unable to answer questions on that point.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are such persons treated in England as aliens and subjected to police supervision?
    Mr. McKENNA: We do not know who the persons are. They cannot be very numerous. There may be some individual cases in which Germans may not have lost their original nationality, but we do not know who they are, and we have no means of ascertaining.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Does the Home Secretary take no steps to ascertain, before giving certificates of naturalisation, whether or not the German subject proposes to be denaturalised?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member refers to certificates of naturalisation given since the War, he may rest quite easy in his mind. In no case would the circumstances be such that naturalised persons would retain their German nationality. I am dealing in this instance with cases of naturalisation since the War. In cases where naturalisation took place a few years ago, it is impossible for me to say whether any of the persons naturalised retained their nationality.
    Mr. STEWART: Is it not the case that the Stock Exchange is very well aware that some of the members have not de-naturalised themselves in Germany?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether, before the War Office sent their telegram of 1st January, 1915, suspending the order made by the competent military authority for removing aliens from the East Coast, any complaints or representations, verbal or written, were made on the subject by the Home Office to the War Office, or to the military authority who had made the order?
    Mr. McKENNA: No complaints or representations, verbal or written, were made by the Home Office to the War Office or to the military authority, who had made the order, other than the Home Office letter of 1st January, 1915, which was received by the. War Office after the War Office had sent their telegram of 1st January, 1915.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether an alien enemy named Von Saal is residing at Stevenage, in Hertfordshire; whether he has been refused naturalisation; and whether any orders have been sent regarding him by the Home Office to the local police?
    Mr. McKENNA: An alien of German origin named Von Saal is, I believe, residing at Stevenage. He applied for naturalisation in the year 1913, and did not obtain it. No orders have been sent by the Home Office to the local police about this man; but in answer to an inquiry in September last, the Department stated that, in view of documentary evidence that he had been discharged from German nationality in 1897, he was not subject to registration as an alien enemy.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the military authorities have no power to take effective precautionary measures against suspected persons who are naturalised British subjects, he will introduce a measure to amend the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, so as to make that Act apply to all persons of alien birth, whether naturalised or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to No. 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. There is no reason to think that these powers are insufficient to deal with any suspected person.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the military
    258
    authorities are seriously handicapped in dealing with spies by the immunities which naturalisation gives them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these matters are carefully taken into consideration.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to give a day for the discussion of the aliens question as a whole?
    The PRIME MINISTER: An opportunity was recently given, of which unfortunately the hon. Member, owing to illness, was unable to take advantage. I think a further opportunity for discussion of this subject will shortly arise on the Vote of Credit.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the discussion on the Vote of Credit is liable to be cut into by any Member who desires to raise any subject? Can he not give another day for discussion of aliens?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There will be another opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not the same objection apply to the Consolidated Fund Bill?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a memorial from the chairman of the Hitchin bench of magistrates in regard to the German convalescent hospital there; whether the entire indoor staff consists of alien enemies; whether he is aware that the hospital is situate on high ground commanding the town of Hitchin and, in particular, the Great Northern station of that town; and, seeing that anxiety is felt in the district regarding these alien enemies, will he say what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. McKENNA: I received a few days ago the memorial mentioned in the first sentence of the question, and it contains the statements referred to. I am inquiring into the matter.

    SWANSEA POLICE FORCE (TEMPORARY VACANCIES).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Home Secretary whether the Home Office have given instructions to the Chief Constable

    259
    at Swansea to fill the places of Reservist policemen who have joined the Colours with young men of military age; and if he has considered the desirability of putting older and married men to fill these temporary vacancies?
    Mr. McKENNA: No such instructions have been issued by me to the Swansea Chief Constable or to any police force. On the contrary, I have advised police authorities to fill the temporary vacancies by the reappointment of police pensioners and the organisation of special constables, and much use has been made of the services of these men by police authorities.

    CENSORSHIP OF MAILS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether the censorship is being exercised for personal purposes, such as the prevention and return to senders of private letters containing comments on Members of the Government; and whether he will define the extent to which censorship is now being exercised over private correspondence?
    Mr. TENNANT: The censorship is of course not being used for any personal or partisan purposes, but solely for the prevention of leakage of naval and military information which might be useful to the enemy.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether on the 25th January the military head of the Censor of Mails admitted that he only became aware of the Austrian relationship of a lady in his department since she joined the censorship; that it is a well-known fact that her own brother deplored her strong pro-German sympathies, and that one of the gentlemen whose name was given as a reference for the position she now occupies has since admitted that, having regard to her associations, he ought not to have recommended her; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is misinformed of the date when the military postal censor became aware of the Austrian relationship of the lady. I have no information at the War Office as to the second part of the question, but I have ascertained from the family that it is unfounded, and that they warmly resent the
    260
    imputation. All our inquiries have failed to identify the person suggested in the third part of the question. It is not proposed to take any action.

    CLOTHING CONTRACTS (SCOTTISH MANUFACTURERS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether clothing manufacturers in Scotland have to come to Pimlico to submit samples to his Department of what they can make; and, if so, whether he can in future make some arrangement more suitable for the smaller makers?
    Mr. BAKER: No, Sir, clothing manufacturers are not required to go to Pimlico to submit samples, but are invited to tender to the War Department sealed patterns and specifications, which are on view at various chambers of commerce, including Glasgow.
    Mr. WATTasked whether any arrangement has yet been made whereby Scotland is to have a representative on the Clothing Committee?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer on this subject which I gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is the intention of his Department to confine the clothing contract to be fixed up next month to large makers capable of turning out over 1,000 garments per week; and are these large makers to be precluded from subcontracting with smaller makers?
    Mr. BAKER: The great amount of work involved in inspecting and handling a large number of small consignments will it is feared prevent the War Department from placing direct contracts with firms who are unable to make substantial deliveries, but no decision has yet been taken as to the minimum which will be accepted. Provided that the conditions as to labour, rates of wages, etc., specified in the contract are observed, contractors will be allowed to employ other persons or firms usually employed by them in their ordinary trade and actually making the garments in their own factories and workshops.

    WAR OFFICE (TIMBER PURCHASES).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the time hitherto allowed for debate on questions relating to Mr. Montague Meyer's commission for timber buying has proved insufficient for a full answer from the Department concerned; and can he see his way to give the House a full opportunity of discussing the matters connected with Mr. Meyer's transactions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office dealt very fully with this matter on Thursday last. A further opportunity for discussion, if desired, will arise both on the Vote of Credit and on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several direct questions put by hon. Members at Question time have not been answered, and also that several other questions put in the course of Debate have not been answered, because the Debate came to an abrupt termination owing to the time having expired? So far, we have not been able to test the statements made by the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Full opportunity was given on both occasions.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether it will be possible to discuss the subject on the Vote of Credit, and to move specific reductions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state, as the result of the inquiries made before the appointment of Mr. Meyer as timber buyer on commission for the Government, the prevalent price per standard immediately before the declaration of war; the prices asked by British merchants after the declaration of war; the prices now current in the trade for the same class of timber; the prices at which the War Office has obtained timber through Mr. Meyer; the quantity and total price of the timber so obtained; and the amount of Mr. Meyer's commission according to the arrangement with him?
    Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): The hon. Member will realise that the information asked for is outside the limits of an
    262
    answer to an oral question, having regard to the number of qualities and scantlings of timber involved. The First Commissioner is, however, prepared to circulate with the Votes in due course such information as can be readily amassed with regard to certain typical scantlings. The amount of Mr. Meyer's commission was 2½ per cent. on the amount of timber required and ordered through him.
    Mr. WATT: Has the hon. Gentleman no information as to the quantity of timber that was required by his Department?
    Mr. BECK: I should like to have notice of such a question. It is not a question of what was required by my Department, as my hon. Friend calls it, but of what was required by the War Office.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the under Secretary of State for War the date of Mr. Montague Meyer s appointment as timber-buying agent to the War Office; who was the person or firm who introduced Mr. Meyer to the Office of Works; and whether Mr. Meyer was among those timber merchants who quoted, in response to the inquiries stated to have been sent out by the Office of Works, for the timber requirements of the War Office?
    Mr. BECK: Mr. Meyer was appointed on the 19th of October. He was not introduced to the Office of Works by anybody, but became known to them in the course of inquiries sent out by them to him, in common with others, and was known to have supplied timber to the War Office. Mr. Meyer did not quote actual figures, although he was prepared to do so: but suggested that, in view of the state of the market, the proper method was to buy direct abroad in bulk, which suggestion was adopted.
    Mr. YOUNG: Why are these questions not being replied to by a representative of the War Office, which is the Department mainly and primarily responsible for this appointment?
    Mr. BECK: The reason is that this transaction was carried out by the Office of Works as the agent of the War Office, and the Office of Works has the information which my hon. Friend requires.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Was not Mr. Meyer appointed by the War Office?
    Mr. BOOTH: Is it the fact that the Office of Works voluntarily offered to the War Office to execute the purchase of

    263
    timber, on the ground that they were the office best suited, and that the War Office found that they could not perform the duty except by the engagement of Mr. Meyer, a perfect stranger to them?
    Mr. BECK: It is very inconvenient to answer questions in this way. I understand the facts are that the War Office went to the Office of Works for advice as to obtaining a very large quantity of timber, the Office of Works being the Department which deals with such matters. The Office of Works then advised the War Office, and finding that the War Office was, in the time of terrible stress through which it went, tremendously overworked, the Office of Works undertook to procure any wood wanted by the War Office for them. That is the whole transaction.
    Mr. WATT: Was the Office of Works informed of the quantity of timber required by the War Office and the value of it?
    Mr. BECK: Nobody was informed of it. Nobody could tell in advance what would be required.
    Mr. YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Montague Meyer was paid commission on the value of his own stock as taken over by the Office of Works for the requirements of the War Office; who fixed the value of Mr. Meyer's stock; whether the value of his stock was included in the figure of £600,000 already given to the House of Commons; and what was the total value of the stock of timber as taken over by the Government from Mr. Meyer?
    Mr. BECK: Mr. Meyer was only paid the agreed commission on the invoice price, and not on the value of stock taken over from him. The payment was agreed by the Office of Works after inspection by their officers of the original contract documents in relation to the stock. The stock is included in the £600,000. The total value of it was £11,360.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: When attention was called to the matter in the House, bad Mr. Meyer rendered a commission account?
    Mr. BECK: There is no foundation for that at all. I understand that on this particular transaction, as compared with the price he would have obtained in the open market, Mr. Meyer lost some £2,000.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has any maximum ever been fixed for the total amount of commission payable?
    Mr. BECK: I submit that that does not arise out of this question.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there should be any difference between the invoice price and the value of the timber?
    Mr. BECK: Yes, Sir. The point is this: Mr. Meyer had some timber in stock. If the hon. Baronet will look up the facts, he will find that timber appreciated some 20 per cent. between the time Mr. Meyer bought this wood and the time he supplied it to the Office of Works. He would naturally, in the ordinary course of events, have got the benefit of that 20 per cent. increase, but owing to the excellent arrangement of the Office of Works he did not get it. He got only the 2½ per cent.
    Mr. YOUNG: I beg to give notice that I shall again call attention to this matter, either on the adjournment to-night or at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the Office of Works, (1) whether he will state what is the total value of timber purchased up to date by Mr. Montague Meyer on behalf of the Government; (2) whether he still adheres to his statement that the Office of Works sent out 500 communications to timber firms asking them to quote before the appointment of Mr. Meyer; (3) if so, can he explain why a large number of leading firms in the trade were excluded; (4) does he confirm the statement of the Under-Secretary that Mr. Meyer at no time had the use of a room at the Office of Works; and (5) whether there is any objection to Members of the House inspecting the contract made with Mr. Meyer?
    Mr. BECK: (1) The total value is approximately £600,000; (2) the exact number of communications cannot be stated, but inquiries which I have made show that reference as to stocks and prices was made by letter, telephone and telegram to over 200 different firms ascertained, among other sources, from the directory published by the Timber Trades Journal, and there are on record prices and particulars of well over 1,000 parcels of timber of various qualities and scantlings; (3) I have no information confirming the statement that a large number

    265
    of leading firms were excluded—the facts above stated indicate how far-reaching the inquiry was; (4) yes; (5) the contract with Mr. Meyer took the form of a letter of appointment, a copy of which I shall be happy to show to any Member desiring to see it.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: In reference to the hon. Gentleman's answer "Yes," I would like to know, Does the hon. Gentleman confirm the statement of the Under-Secretary that at no time had Mr. Meyer the use of a room in the Office of Works? Does the hon. Gentleman say that the published statement of leading firms that they were interviewed by Mr. Meyer in the Office of Works is untrue?
    Mr. BECK: If I may say so, that is quite beside the point. I can only assure my right hon. Friend that I am obliged to give the answer "Yes" on that point.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the hon. Gentleman report any progress in the direction of modification of this contract since the question was discussed in the House?
    Mr. BECK: No. The negotiations are proceeding, and so far the arrangement is 2½ per cent. up to £600,000, 2 per cent. between £600,000 and £1,000,000, and 1½ per cent. over £1,000,000.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the arrangement be revised at any moment?
    Mr. BECK: At any moment the arrangement is liable to be revised.

    SPOTTED FEVER (ESSEX).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether spotted fever has broken out in some parts of Essex; whether, under the circumstances, he will give special orders that the billeting carried out in all such districts should be done as carefully as possible and due precaution taken against overcrowding; and whether the local sanitary authorities are in all cases consulted before soldiers are billeted in large numbers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret to say that spotted fever has broken out in some parts of Essex. Special orders have been issued with regard to billeting, and due precautions are being taken against overcrowding. The local sanitary authorities are consulted in all cases.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (SERGEANT A. J. MACDONALD).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Sergeant Angus James Macdonald, Royal Army Medical Corps, was sent under escort to Colchester on the 29th January, and was until the 3rd February detained in a ward with sentenced prisoners, and is still under guard without any charge being made against him; whether he will be brought to trial or court-martial, and, if so, when; and whether, in the event of no charge being formulated against him, he will be released at once?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that Sergeant Maedonald, Royal Army Medical Corps, was put under escort, accused of insolence and misconduct at a private hospital in Norfolk. Owing to the hospital at Colchester being full, he had to be placed in the same room with others. During the investigation of his case much difficulty was experienced in getting evidence, on account of the removal of a witness and the distance between Norfolk and Colchester. Sergeant Macdonald was accordingly released on the 22nd instant.

    RECRUITING (CARNARVON).
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of recruits who have joined the Army in Carnarvon since the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: For reasons already stated, it is not in the British interest to give recruiting figures of this character.
    Mr. YEO: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press in which the recruiting officer gives the figures and says they are a disgrace to the county of Carnarvon?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that that appeared in the Press. If my hon. Friend will show it to me, I shall be pleased to see it.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: Has there not been a very remarkable development in recruiting in the county of Carnarvon since the establishment of the Welsh Army Corps?
    Mr. TENNANT: I could not give an answer to that question off-hand.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is it not a fact that over 600 men joined from the town of Carnarvon, out of a population of only 9,000?
    Mr. TENNANT: Again I cannot give the information off-hand.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that, by the Army Order 27/10/14, XVII., Section 5 (a), a dependant must give proof of actual dependence for a reasonable period prior to mobilisation, he will take the necessary steps to have the order amended so that it may cover the case of a dependant who has lost her husband since the commencement of the War and has thus become dependent on her son who is in the Army?
    Mr. BAKER: This suggestion has been fully considered, but it is not proposed to depart from the basis of fact as laid down by the Select Committee.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will favourably consider the possibility of according the same treatment to soldiers in the Southern Nigeria regiment as to other soldiers in the matter of separation allowances, in view of the fact that the extra pay these men receive is a recognition of the exceptional climate and other privations they have customarily to undergo?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The soldiers of the Nigeria regiment are natives of West Africa. I presume my hon. Friend refers to the British non-commissioned officers employed with the regiment. The pay of these non-commissioned officers is sufficient to enable them to make substantial remittances to dependent relatives in this country; and the reasons for granting separation allowances to the rank and file of the British Army during the present War are not applicable in their case.
    Mr. HOGGEasked what is the nature of the instructions sent to pension officers to guide them in assessing the dependence of the nominee of the soldier?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire on the 10th instant, of which I will send him a copy.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he says nothing in that reply as to the particular method and nature of the instructions? One wants to know what is the particular nature and not the general nature.
    Mr. BAKER: I gave a very fair account of the instructions. It was quite a detailed statement.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the limit of seven years within which application can be made for pensions, stated in. Cd. 7662, obtains in the new recommendations?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether, under the new regulations for pensions, the same provision obtains for mentally or physically infirm children as obtained in Cd. 7662?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. HOGGEasked what is the nature of the offences for which with drawal of allowances and pensions is the possible punishment to the recipients; and whether, in the event of the mother being convicted, the allowance or pension to children will also be withdrawn?
    Mr. BAKER: Separation allowance or pension may be withdrawn on clear proof of serious misconduct, such as immorality definitely established, conviction on criminal charges, gross neglect of children or persistent drinking, especially where such drinking results in the neglect of children. The allowance or pension to the children is not withdrawn.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: How will such an offence have to be proved before the allowance is withdrawn?
    Mr. BAKER: I understand the tribunal to which this is to be referred is under consideration, and an announcement will be made later.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention had been drawn to the case of Mrs. Mary Williams, Abernant, the wife of G. E. Williams, 37,376, whose allowance has been stopped because it is alleged that she was not married before 13th August; whether he is aware that the date for the marriage was fixed before the young man enlisted and took place

    269
    on the date originally fixed; and whether, under these circumstances, he will have the matter reconsidered with a view to having the allowance restored?
    Mr. BAKER: My attention has not been drawn to this particular case, but regulations removing the restriction of date are about to be issued and it will then be open to Mrs. Williams to make an application for the allowance.
    Mr. HOGGEhad given notice of the following questions to the Prime Minister (1) whether the introductory note to Cd. 7662 also covers the Special Report from the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants; and, if so, will he lay Papers before 1st March showing how the Admiralty orders and Army orders and the regulations affect allowances and pensions; and (2) whether all future Admiralty and Army orders and regulations applicable to allowances and pensions will be laid before Parliament before becoming applicable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask the hon. Member to postpone these questions.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the new scale of pensions becomes operative on 1st March, or any other fixed date, or whether they will date from the expiry of the twenty-six weeks' continued separation allowance now payable to widows?
    Mr. BAKER: Generally speaking the new scale of pensions takes effect from expiry of the twenty-six weeks; but if that had taken place before 1st March, then from 1st March.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment I will raise the question of separation allowances.

    RECRUITS REJECTED (BADGE).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will recommend the issue of a badge to be worn by men who have, since the commencement of the War, offered themselves for enlistment but have been refused for some physical disqualification?
    Mr. TENNANT: For reasons already stated on previous occasions, the suggested issue is not considered desirable.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people who wanted to enlist but were, unable to do so have been subject to many undeserved taunts?
    Mr. TENNANT: I sympathise very much with the persons the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to, but I am sure he will realise that the issue of such a badge as he contemplates might be open to abuse.

    REMOUNT CAMP (AVONMOUTH).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the remount camp at or near Avonmouth; whether he is aware that this camp is situated on low-lying ground which in winter is always wet and this year is at times a swamp, and that there has been a large amount of sickness amongst the horses in consequence; and whether he will state the number of horses who have died at this camp and the number who are still there?
    Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called to the remount depot at Avonmouth by a report made to me of a visit to that place by the hon. and gallant Member for the Widnes Division of Lancashire. This depot, which covers a large area of ground, is situated generally on the slopes of a ridge, though a portion is sited on flat ground at the foot. Considering the large numbers of horses that have been landed at Avonmouth after a winter Atlantic-voyage, the percentage of deaths (.65 per cent.) is extraordinarily small, as is also the number of sick. The total number sick in veterinary hospital on the 20th instant is 588. The sickness is mainly attributable to the numbers of sick horses disembarked at the port.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some parts of the camp are under water?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reports to which I have alluded state that parts of the ground are liable to flooding, but on the date on which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to make an inspection there was no flooding. That was on the 20th January. There had then been a tremendous amount of rain, and it is lather remarkable that it should not be under water. I am alluding to that portion of it which is below the level of the surrounding land and not that on the ridge higher up.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Was not the right hon. Gentleman's Department warned beforehand by local residents that this lower portion was liable to flooding?
    Mr. TENNANT: All I can say is that it was considered desirable to have a part of it on the low-lying ground for the purpose of shelter, and there is no cause at all to find fault with it.
    Mr. BUTCHERasker whether the site of the remount camp at or near Avon-mouth was selected without the knowledge of the remount officer of the district, and in spite of the representations of persons living in the neighbourhood who knew the locality?
    Mr. TENNANT: The site was first selected by a remount officer of wide experience, and his selection was subsequently approved by the chief engineer and the chief veterinary officer of the Southern Command. The War Office has no cause to regret their choice, and is unaware of any representations from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood.

    SOLDIERS OX FURLOUGH (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to cases where soldiers who had been granted a three days' furlough to go to their homes prior to proceeding abroad, and who, after spending 10s. on train fares, were recalled by telegram within twelve hours; whether, under the circumstances, he will give instructions to refund to the men the money expended in railway fares; whether he is aware that the 10s. allowed for certain articles of kit on enlistment in many cases still remains unpaid; whether he will give instructions for the immediate payment of this allowance; whether the question of granting free railway passes to men going home on furlough prior to being sent abroad has yet been decided; and, if not, can he promise a decision at an early date, in view of the fact that men going long distances often have to expend nearly all their available money in railway fares?
    Mr. BAKER: I will make inquiry into the particular case of which the hon. Member has sent me details. Those men who did not get a free warrant for Christmas leave are allowed the concession once
    272
    after three months service or prior to embarkation for the front, if they can be spared.

    GERMAN CONSUL (GLASGOW).
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether a man named Van der Briele was German Consul for Glasgow before the War broke out; whether he is still doing business between Glasgow and Holland which is suspected to be partly German business; whether he is aware that there is likelihood of this man passing on important naval information through his Dutch correspondents to Germany; whether the case has been reported to the Scottish Office by the Glasgow police; and, if so, whether the Scottish Office will order his internment?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The person referred to was, as stated, Consul for Germany at Glasgow. His case was reported on some time ago by the Glasgow police, who saw no reason to suspect that he was assisting the enemy in any way. I understand that negotiations are in progress under which it is probable that certain German Consular officers in this country, including the officer referred to, will be exchanged against British Consular officers in Germany.

    NATIONAL REVENUE.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the House will be given an opportunity to consider new sources of national revenue, such as a tax on wages over 30s. per week and a special tax on profits made directly or indirectly out of the War, before the annual Budget Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear it will not be possible to afford the House such an opportunity as the hon. Member suggests, but an occasion will no doubt arise in connection with the Finance Bill.

    ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the decision of the Government may be

    273
    expected as regards the introduction of legislation to remove the electoral disabilities of persons absent on the naval or military service of the Crown whose cases are not covered by the Act of last Session; and whether he will at the same time consider the inclusion of provisions for the removal of any disabilities that may be similarly caused in municipal elections as regards either voters or those submitting themselves for election?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is being attended to, and we shall be glad to have the co-operation of the various parties in the House in framing legislation that will deal adequately with the situation.

    MINE SWEEPERS.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the services rendered by the mine sweeper "Solon," No. 55, to the steamship "Gallier," which had struck a mine off Scarborough on the night of 25th December last; that the skipper, T. Trengall, R.N.R., has been awarded the D.S.O. for approaching this vessel through a mine-field at great risk; and whether he cannot see his way clear to recognise the services of at any rate some of the crew, who risked their lives so freely and ungrudgingly, as this has already been done in another case?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have only just received the hon. Member's question, and I have not had time to make due inquiry. I will do so and communicate with the hon. Member at once.

    COCOA.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: In view of the short supply of cocoa in this country, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will see that the whole of the cargoes in vessels sailing for Scandinavia are stopped?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will communicate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the matter will receive immediate consideration

    SINGAPORE RIOT.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can give the House any information
    274
    about the riot at Singapore, of which the newspapers inform us to-day for the first time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask the hon. Member to give notice of the question.

  John Bull Bank.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the total liability of the institution known as the John Bull Bank, and the total assets or security available to meet those liabilities?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The John Bull Bank is not registered under the Companies Acts, and consequently the Board of Trade have no information as to its assets and liabilities.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the Board any power to ascertain the facts asked in the question?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will make inquiries.

  Vaccination Officers.
  Mr. PETOasked the President o: the Local Government Board whether, seeing that on the 15th July last he received a deputation from the National Vaccination Officers' Association with reference to these officers' loss of income in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907; that he then admitted that a strong case had been made out for his consideration as to what further action the Local Government Board could take with regard to these officers' loss; that on the 27th July last he wrote to the secretary of the association saying that the matter was engaging his close attention; and that on the 20th August last he wrote him a further letter saying that he regretted that at the then present juncture it was not possible to take any immediate action relative to the remuneration of vaccination officers, he will state, in view of a still further loss in income suffered by these officers and the financial position of so many in consequence of such loss and the increased cost of living, what action, if any, he is now prepared to take?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend is in communication with certain Poor Law associations on the subject, and when their replies have been received he will not fail to give the matter his attention.

  Housing Scheme (Woolwich).
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government, in connection with the Woolwich housing scheme, to allow the houses to be sold to the tenants; and whether he has asked the advice of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society in connection with this matter?
  Mr. BECK: The disposal of the houses is under consideration, and full inquiries will be made before a decision is arrived at.

  Coal Prices (Street Vendors).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the desirability of initiating legislation whereby itinerant coal merchants will be compelled to use enamelled iron plates or some such device to prevent them from raising the prices chalked up on their notice boards as they journey from street to street?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The matter is one that could, I think, be dealt with by by-laws made by a local authority under the Weights and Measures Acts.

  Colliery Accident, Felling.
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked the Home Secretary the result of his further inquiry into the circumstances connected with the death of a workman at Felling Colliery, near Gateshead, by an inrush of water through the default of the manager; and what action the Department proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I promised the other day, I am making inquiry of the Admiralty as to the circumstances in which the manager was given permission to return to civil employment. I have not yet heard from them, but as soon as I do I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the Home Secretary the result of all or any of the ballots held in the border parishes under the Welsh Church Act?
  Mr. McKENNA: In respect of seventeen out of nineteen of the Border parishes the Commissioners have made an Order which was published in the "London
  276
  Gazette" of yesterday, determining that they should be treated as wholly outside Wales and Monmouthshire. A return of the voting will be made later if desired. As regards the two remaining parishes of Llansilin and Rhydycroesau, the Commissioners are not satisfied that the votes received indicate with sufficient clearness the general wishes of the parishioners, and they propose to consider means for obtaining a more conclusive expression of opinion.
  Mr. MOUNT: May we have the reasons why the Commissioners came to this conclusion with regard to these two parishes?
  Mr. McKENNA: In one case, I think, a number of votes were sent in late, and in the other case, I believe, the balance of votes between the two was very small, and the majority on one side did not represent a majority of the total number of persons entitled to vote. In all the other seventeen cases there was an actual majority in favour of joining an English diocese, and therefore there could be no doubt on the point.
  Mr. MOUNT: Are we to understand that not a single border parish has chosen to come under the Welsh Church Act?
  Mr. McKENNA: In seventeen cases out of nineteen the decision is in favour of England. In the remaining two cases the fact has not yet been decided.
  Mr. HEWINSasked why no ballot was held in the parish of Cwmyoy at the same time as those held by the Welsh Commissioners in the other border parishes?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioners did not take a vote of the parishioners of the ecclesiastical parish of Cwmyoy as they were advised that the parish was wholly within the administrative area of Monmouthshire.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does not this parish appear in the Commissioners' Report amongst the border parishes—as a parish partly in Monmouthshire and partly in Herefordshire?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question was as to whether the administrative area should be taken, and the Commissioners came to the conclusion, after consulting legal opinion, that the proper construction was to take the administrative area. This parish is included in the administrative area of Monmouthshire.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then they did not act on the Welsh Church Commissioners' Report?
  Mr. McKENNA: They were guided by the proper construction to be put on the Act of Parliament and they were advised legally that the construction was as I have stated.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the unconditional pledge given by the Government on the 16th October, 1912, to deal with the completion of land purchase in Ireland at the earliest possible date, the failure to redeem that pledge, and the growing urgency of the need for its redemption, if he will say when and at whose instance the Government subjected that pledge to a condition precedent known to be impossible; and whether the Government hold that this condition subsequently created by themselves cancels their pledge to deal with the completion of land purchase?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I save on this subject on the 8th instant and 22nd July last. I must not be taken as admitting the accuracy of the statements in the question, and in the present circumstances legislation in this matter is admittedly impossible.
  Mr. GINNELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman question the accuracy of the pledge given on his behalf in October, 1912 an unconditional pledge?

  Floods (Upper Thames Valley).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the injuries caused by the Thames and Wey floods; and whether he will consider the advisability of the appointment of a Royal Commission to determine whether it is possible to prevent, or at least to minimise, the injuries that are annually occasioned to the proprietors of land and other property in the valleys of these rivers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The attention of the Government has been called from time to time to the serious injury caused by floods in the Upper Thames Valley and to the desirability of a careful inquiry into the matter. In 1914 a scheme was submitted to the Thames Conservancy Board by their engineer, but the cost of carrying
  278
  it out was estimated at about £3,000,000 and the Conservancy Board expressed doubts whether this heavy expenditure would be justified by the results, among which would be a considerable reduction, in the amenities of the river. The present time hardly appears to be suitable for such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the forthcoming Budget, the House will be given the opportunity and full time to consider proposals for the simplification of the Income Tax by making it a tax on net income instead of, as at present, a tax on capital and income?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Proposals of the nature referred to by the hon. Member could only be considered in connection with a general inquiry into the Income' Tax laws. It is hoped that when circumstances allow such an inquiry may be set on foot by the Committee which I foreshadowed last July.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think this a very suitable moment to conduct such inquiries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it a most unsuitable moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The Bill to which I ask the House to-day to give a Second Reading is a Bill to amend in certain particulars the Defence of the Realm Act. That Act was an Emergency Statute which was carried rapidly through both Houses of Parliament last autumn. The provisions of that Emergency Statute were essentially two: In the first place, it authorised new rules and regulations to be made by Order in Council, regulations in order to prevent action which might prejudice our national security in the struggle upon which we were entering. In the second place, it provided a rapid machinery by which those who disregarded those regulations might be convicted and punished. The regulations are of a very varying kind. They cover such subjects as these—regulations to control the showing of lights, to remove suspected persons from particular areas, or to prohibit any sort of communication or publication which might assist the enemy, and also regulations against signalling, and against ships entering dangerous or prohibited areas of the sea, and in fact a whole code of rules which were devised in order to meet these special and urgent circumstances with which we were faced. But, of course, it was not enough to make those regulations which were obviously needed.
  What we did in the most important part of this Emergency Statute was this. We needed provisions which would enable those regulations to be enforced rapidly and effectively. So long as the offence was not a very grave one the method was easy, because we provided that the smaller offences might be dealt with by magistrates in Police Courts. As the House knows no magistrate can give a heavier sentence than six months' hard labour. A great number of cases of offences against these regulations have been dealt with by magistrates, in fact by far the larger number. Nothing that I am now proposing will in any way alter that part of the machinery. But there were graver offences, and the House at
  288
  very short notice had to decide what was the tribunal which could enforce rapidly those rules and regulations, vitally necessary as they were in the interests of the country, without any of that delay which is inevitable with the ordinary machinery of civil justice when we are dealing with very serious cases. Consequently the House unanimously agreed to the proposal in the Defence of the Real Act that those grave cases should be dealt with by court-martial.
  There is no good whatever in disguising the fact that that was an extremely novel proposal, and created a very unique situation. As everybody who understands and cares for the traditions of British citizenship knows, in ordinary times, whether in peace or war a British citizen in this country is not liable to be tried by court-martial, unless of course he be a member of the armed forces of the Crown. Courts-martial exist in order to deal with military and naval persons, and not ordinary cases affecting private citizens. But the justification—and the whole House, and every quarter of the House is concerned in inquiring what that justification is—to my mind was a very plain one. It was this: Our first duty, the duty of all of us sitting in council here, whatever part of the House in which we sit, and whatever our prejudices may be, was, when the War broke out, to be certain that we had taken adequate and sufficient steps to provide against what obviously might be a great national danger. We did so in every department of our national life, and we departed in many other respects besides this from what have been supposed to be the traditions of our own country. The justification which it appears to me plainly existed for what we did last autumn is exactly the same justification as explains why we had three Bank holidays running, why we constituted a moratorium, why we shut up the Stock Exchange, and why we adopted novel expedients in all sorts of directions. For my part I do not think that either the Government or the House of Commons is in the least to be blamed, or at the bar of history will be blamed, because at that moment it was thinking of nothing except making quite certain that, the provisions which we had made were adequate and sufficient. That appears to me to be the justification for which we are searching—because we are all concerned in it—for what the House of Commons did last autumn.

  289
  I may say now that as long as the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act as it now stands on the Statute Book give nothing more than is needed in this national emergency the argument that they are novel and do violence to our constitutional traditions is an argument of very little weight. But there is also the fact that it becomes a matter of the greatest importance for everybody who cares for what is characteristic in British institutions to see, now that we have had some seven months of experience, whether the provisions which we then adopted by common consent in any degree go beyond what is really necessary in order to safeguard national interests. We have had seven months experience. That means, on the one hand, that we have been able to measure exactly how far our needs in this regard extend and how precisely the previous Statute meets them; and it means, on the other hand of course, that we have got more time, and it has been possible with the help of that time to prepare measures—it was not a thing which I found very easy to do—which the Government now recommend to the House of Commons as being perfectly consistent with the over-riding duty which we owe to the country, and to see that while we make adequate provision in this emergency against any danger we also do something which will relieve the genuine and proper concern which many people have felt at what appeared to be like a denial of an ancient and constitutional judicial right.
  The Government will not, of course, propose any change which involves a surrender of any powers, however novel, which are in any way required for national security. The Amendments which we are proposing will in no way infringe the over-riding condition to which I have referred. I may point out to the House what is the real extent of the novelty which the Defence of the Realm Act undoubtedly involves. As I said just now, in ordinary times courts-martial are the courts which deal with soldiers and sailors. The difficulty is to be found in the traditions of our Constitution and in one of the characteristic features of the constitutional life which we live in this country. It is not so, of course, in all civilised countries; but it is our pride, and it ought to be our pride, jealously to preserve this tradition of the ancient rights of British subjects to say, "We are amenable to civil tribunals, and courts-martial
  290
  are for the purposes of the discipline of those who serve in the Army and Navy."
  There is one qualification, and it is a qualification which sometimes is not always remembered or observed. It is this: If some special emergency arises in which the ordinary tribunals are not effectively available, then military justice, as those who are authorities on Constitutional Law quite recognise, becomes a necessity. It is justified in that event by the needs of public order, and by the over-riding principle of National defence and security. What I am now proposing by way of modification or amendment of the Statute is not in any way in conflict with that principle. If Members will turn to the Bill, and will look at Subsection (5) of the operative Clause, they will see that we have carefully safeguarded ourselves from being supposed to forget that exceptional case. If this country was suddenly exposed to invasion, or if some other special emergency of that character arose, in which the civil tribunals would not be effectively available to do their work, then it is clear, as a matter of common sense, and I believe entirely consistent with our old traditions, that we should have to use military tribunals because those tribunals would be practically available; and, since we have already set up the machinery by which military tribunals can be used, and have got those regulations which prescribe in definite terms what rules are to be observed, we must insist on our providing in this Bill that, in those eventualisies, eventualities which I trust will never arise, but if they do arise, the proposals of this Amending Bill are not to operate, and we return to the situation as it was. I may be asked who is to decide whether or not, under Sub-section (5), the Proclamation suspending the operation of the Statute is to be made. There is only one possible answer to that question. Of necessity the Executive must decide that; nobody else can decide it. The very essence of the situation presupposes that we are faced with an emergency when, in the circumstances, concentration, deliberation, and legislation is impossible, and therefore the Executive must decide whether or not the Proclamation under Sub-section (5) becomes necessary.
  But I can assure the House that it is not our intention to take advantage of the provisions under Sub-section (5) and have that Proclamation, unless it be that there

  291
  is an emergency such as I have described; and, of course, it is far from our intention to use the power, there preserved to us, wantonly or without real and extreme necessity. Subject, therefore, to that qualification, the novelty which we set up when we passed the Defence of the Realm Act and which extended to this, that we brought the whole of our countrymen within the jurisdiction of courts-martial, without any regard as to whether they were serving in the Army and Navy or not, is dealt with by this Bill. So long as we can preserve our rights, under Subsection (5), to suspend this Amending Statute in case of extreme need, and subject to one other consideration which I shall point out in a moment — and the military authorities accept and confirm our view—there is no reason why we should not restore to British subjects the right, if they choose, when accused of a breach of the regulations, to be tried before the civil tribunal If the case is a comparatively unimportant case which can be dealt with by a magistrate, it may be dealt with by a magistrate; but where that cannot be done, it is provided that the British subject in no circumstances shall be compelled against his will to be tried by court-martial. He must have that option and he must exercise that option. That brings me to the other condition which must be taken into consideration, namely, the condition of promptitude. It is quite impossible for us to treat the present situation as we should treat a case of crime committed in ordinary times, in which a man may be accused one day and be brought up next week before the magistrate after a deposition has been elaborately drawn up, and in which he may be committed for trial before a judge and jury, sitting in some particular Assize town, perhaps two or three months afterwards, and then finally convicted if he be proved guilty of the offence. That is wholly incompatible with the situation with which we have to deal.
  We have found that one of the principal difficulties in framing an Amending Statute was to provide some machinery which would avoid that delay, and we have done it, as we think, by these two provisions. In the first place, we say that the British subject must claim the right to be tried by a jury within four clear days from the time when the general nature of the charge is communicated to him. It will be obvious to the House that if you left him to claim that right until
  292
  the moment you brought him before the court-martial, and the court-martial sits to hear the case, and he then makes his claim to be tried by a jury, you are exposed to delay which is quite unnecessary. It is impossible to wait until the actual period of the case coming on and then give him this option. Let me say on this point, in regard to which doubt has been expressed, that of course it is our intention to secure that the British subject who is accused of breaking the regulations shall know that he has got this privilege. It will be a very half-hearted way of dealing with the situation if we did not take care of that.
  4.0 P.M.
  The regulations are practically drawn up under this operative Clause, and it is provided that at the same time he is given notice of the general nature of the charge against him in terms he has that privilege. That is one of the steps we are taking to avoid delay. But there is Sub-section (4) of the operative-Clauses which provides that, if a person claims to be tried by a jury, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed at the place in which it actually was committed, or in any place in which the offender may be, for the purpose of the trial. The object of that is simply this, that, having caught your offender and having told him the general nature of the charge, and as the man may claim to be tried by a jury rather than by court-martial if he wishes, that you should then be able in case of need to arrange for his being tried at an Assize town or at the Central Criminal Court with the least avoidable delay. As many hon. Members know, unless you have some such proposal if he happens to be in a county where the Assizes have recently taken place, the old and familiar rule that he must be tried in the county where he commits the offence or which is associated with the offence might involve a delay not merely of weeks but of months. The House will therefore see that we have, I think, secured what is absolutely essential, namely, great promptitude in the trial of offenders. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I may be asked why do you limit this Clause to British subjects. It is true that in this country, so far as may be, we confer the same privileges on those who are not British subjects as we do on British subjects in so far as matters of trial are concerned. But there is a very good reason why we should so limit that. Nobody, I imagine, will suggest that we

  293
  should confer this privilege upon enemy subjects. That goes by the board, and therefore the only question is whether we should bring within the Statute foreigners who are subjects of neutral nations. I think there is a very good reason why we should not. Anyone who has had the duty of looking into some of the cases will appreciate that one reason is that it is not always very easy to find out as a matter of fact the nationality of your suspected offender. Very difficult and delicate questions sometimes arise as to what his nationality may be.
  In my own experience during the War there have been at least two cases where the man who was caught insisted that he was the subject of a friendly nation, and it was only after particular inquiries that it was ascertained that his claim was perfectly groundless, and that he had no right at all to make it. Therefore there will be considerable difficulty in many cases of not being sure of the nationality of the offender. Moreover, there is this point. Supposing you had an undoubted case of a subject of some other State being caught on some charge, it would be perfectly open to the authorities, and in a proper case it would be very natural for them to say, "We wish the man to be tried under the ordinary criminal procedure of our land." There is nothing in this Statute which prevents that, and there are cases—there is one which has come within my own knowledge during the last few months—in which that is a very natural procedure. I warn the House of Commons not to seek to change this Bill so as to confer this statutory right on anybody except British subjects, because after all, so far as it is a matter of principle and so far as it is a matter of national tradition, it is a British principle and it is a British tradition which we are endeavouring to preserve in this Bill. I have endeavoured to explain as clearly as I can what the provisions of this Bill are, and let me sum them up. We say that our proposal will be found to satisfy these three conditions. In the first place, it preserves the machinery of military justice which we have set up through these regulations ready to be used in case of invasion or other extreme special emergency. In the second place, it avoids the delay which might otherwise, and would otherwise, arise if we allowed British subjects to be dealt with in a serious case by the ordinary civil tribunal; and, in the third place, while it satisfies both those conditions, I claim
  294
  that it does restore upon the Statute Book of Parliament, if you put it there, to British citizens a right which all of us ought most jealously and vigilantly preserve and which is deeply embedded in the whole fabric of British institutions. I beg to move.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I think the House and the country will welcome this Bill as a modification of the Bill that was passed lately, namely, the Defence of the Realm Act. At the same time, I notice there has been a good deal of criticism of the conduct of this House in allowing the previous Bill to go through without discussion. For my own part, I do not believe for a moment, where the responsible Government came down to this House and told us in the circumstances under which we were then placed that it was necessary to interfere to the extent the Bill did with the existing constitution in relation to trial by jury, I do not think any Member of this House would have taken upon himself the responsibility of refusing those powers to the Government. I think, so long as you have regular Courts sitting, Courts with full responsibility and with great traditions, you ought, so far as possible, avail yourselves of them. But when you have laid that down as a general proposition, it is idle to say that circumstances may not arise, and circumstances may not have arisen at the time the Government brought in this Bill, which render it entirely impossible to adhere to the old traditions of the Constitution. I have not the least sympathy with some of the speeches I have seen on this subject, going back to the origin of Magna Charta and all those great foundations of liberty to which we owe so much. I do not believe any Government would wish to set any of those aside unless they thought a grave exigency had arisen. I cannot but believe that the Government, with full responsibility and full consideration, thought it necessary, when they passed the previous Bill, to bring in a Bill of that class at the time. For my own part, if they asked for the same powers to be continued to-day, I would, so far as I have any influence with my Friends, say that the Government ought to have the full powers they ask for. I do not think you can carry on the circumstances under which we now are without throwing full responsibility upon the Government for everything. They know what they have to deal with. We do not.
  I think the House may congratulate itself that notwithstanding the time we are

  295
  passing through and what we have passed through, that the Government are able to come down here and say, after seven months of war, "We now think less drastic legislation is necessary with a view to the punishment of crime." I suppose the Government have done that for reasons best known to themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Lords."] Just as we gave the Government the full powers they asked for when the Defence of the Realm Act was before the House, so now I think we ought to give the powers in the modified form in which they are asked, and I am sure, as those are entirely in favour of the subject, they will be ungrudgingly given. I dare say there are some hon. Members who would urge larger concessions. I certainly am not one of them. I agree with the Attorney-General, and I think anybody who has had anything to do with the administration of the law will also agree with him, that as regards what I may call less serious crime the one great thing to be aimed at is the speedy vindication of the law and the speedy carrying out of justice. That is why in lots of our legislation trial by jury is not allowed to the subject where the sentences are not of a very severe character. I think this Bill preserves all that is necessary in relation to speedy trial, whether before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or whether it be in certain exigencies before a court-martial, a very much abused tribunal, but which, so far as I know, is a very fair tribunal. At the same time this Bill gives power to the Government, should exigencies arise, to preserve the Defence of the Realm Act in the full manner in which it was passed by the House. So far, therefore, as I am concerned, I welcome this Bill and will certainly support it.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am bound to confess feeling some disappointment not only with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but also with the speech of the Attorney-General. Both seemed in my view to be too apologetic of our old rights. I mean that both right hon. Gentlemen seemed to look with far more equanimity than possibly Members in this House will look on the abrogation of the ancient privilege of trial by jury, and, to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, speed seemed to be of infinitely more importance than the right administration of the law. As far as I could make out from his
  296
  speech, we have to look more to the other place for upholding the rights that come down to us by many precedents than we have been able to look to His Majesty's Government for the maintenance of them. I doubt whether this Bill would have seen the light of day if it had not been for certain individuals whom irreverent people would call old Tory peers. I go so far as to make my acknowledgments to the Noble Lords who gave us the speeches they delivered on 27th November. Those speeches might very well mean the postponement of early demise, and it is not the first time we have had to look to the House of Lords, I find, for a justification of liberties which have been won by hard struggles during the history of our country. I am bound to say I would much rather have heard from the Front Bench here references to the fabric of personal liberty, for example, quoted from one of the Noble Lords, and I would much rather have heard some references to the wholesale sweeping away of rights, which, if I may venture to mention the name, Lord Halsbury greatly deprecated. I take my share in the blame. I tell that to the House quite frankly, that the House so readily at a time of panic should have acquiesced in the Defence of the Realm Act.
  I am prepared to bring before the House the details of a serious case which have been brought to my notice arising from this Act, which it is now proposed to amend, a case which, even with the proposed Amendment, would still be possible in our country. It is a case of a man who, under the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act, is accused by idle rumour of having dealings with the enemy. The local constable being of the busybody type attends to the rumour, and reports to his chief constable. The chief constable approaches the military authorities, and is advised to cause the removal of the man and his family. As a matter of fact, the man could trace back his ancestors to five generations in the county of Devonshire, and he had lived in a Suffolk village for thirty years. The difficulty seems to have arisen because the child in his home was, for educational purposes, interchanged with a German child, the whole transaction ending in 1912. The charge of want of patriotism so worked on this man that be committed suicide, and the coroner's jury in giving their verdict, blamed the police, and in my judgment rightly. They said that they quite agreed that the deceased committed suicide while of unsound

  297
  mind caused by false reports against his patriotism. The jury were also of opinion that the police were very much to blame in not obtaining local information before acting on reports and rumours. The sequel was even more tragic. The wife, who had been removed, was brought back to the village by her son, who had hastened from Guatemala to enlist. He, having placed his mother in the cottage, went to the station to bring the luggage, and on his return found his mother hanging from the banisters of the staircase. That arose through this abrogation of civil rights. There was no power of appeal. If there had been, this man could have been tried by a Civil Court, evidence could have been adduced which would have shown the thoroughness of his bonâ fides, and he might have been continuing the good works which he had carried on in the village in his earlier days. I see nothing in the Amending Bill, except the right of the citizen to claim trial by jury, which would put an end to this state of affairs.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Had the man been tried by court-martial?
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: No, he was removed under regulations promulgated under the Defence of the Realm Act. The initiation of action depended upon the military authorities. The officer commanding the district gave instructions to the police to take action for the man's removal. It was a military act which caused his removal. Therefore, I submit that, through the existence of this Act, the House and the police are responsible for the death of these two persons. The present Bill will make a slight difference. I was particularly pleased to hear the Attorney-General say that the man against whom an offence is alleged is to be notified of his right to be tried by a jury. Because, if it is not made perfectly clear the man who will get trial by jury will be the clever villain who can get the best advice. The individual who will be court-martialled will be the person who cannot get the best advice, and who probably is quite ignorant of his rights under the law. I urge the Government to remember that in giving these extended rights to courts-martial they are placing powers in the hands of those who are not accustomed to the administration of justice. They have neither the experience nor the knowledge to do the right thing. It is also to be remembered that the experienced officers who might normally constitute a court-martial are in the main out of the country, so
  298
  that the work of courts-martial will fall upon men who have not had long experience of the administration of justice, and who may have held their commissions for only a short time.
  The question of venue also arises. Why not still allow a man to claim the right to be tried in the district in which he can produce his evidence? Power is taken in the Bill to have a man tried away from the district where the offence was committed, the initiative lying with the authorities and not with the man. I hope consideration will be given to an Amendment by which a man who is charged will be allowed some right to adhere to his county or district as the venue of his trial. Think what it means to a poor man to be taken right away from the persons who know him best. Think of the cost involved to that man in producing his witnesses in a Court far away from the scene of the offence. The suggestions at present incorporated in the Bill are all very well for a person who is being paid by an enemy State. I hold the man to be a villain indeed who is guilty of treasonable acts at a time of crisis; and anything I say is not to be construed as a desire to shelter a man who is guilty of any offence against the State. But under this Bill the man who has the best opportunity for getting off is the man who is receiving subsidies from the State on whose behalf he is acting. It is the individual who may commit a crime through inadvertence, who is likely to be unable to secure full measure of justice. It appears to me that this Bill is of such great importance that it ought to have more than a merely formal Committee stage. There ought to be ample opportunity of discussing it line by line if necessary. If the right of trial by jury has been built upon precedents, the right of trial by jury may go on precedents. I am somewhat fearful of creating at a time of panic unnecessary precedents interfering with the right of free speech, the right of free expression of opinion, and the right of free movement, and I should have been glad to hear something from the Front Bench assuring me that there was a truer sense of the fitness of things and a keener desire to retain the liberties which have been won for us by many arduous struggles.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Attorney-General has explained the Bill with that perfect lucidity which distinguishes him above most of the lawyers in this House.

  299
  This is no time to indulge in general heroics about the liberty of the subject, or to quote Blackstone on the sanctity of the home, and I do not think there will be many Members who entirely share the view of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldstone) that no emergency legislation of this sort was required. It is no good telling us that he holds the man to be a villain who does the things against which this legislation is directed, unless he can prevent that villain from doing harm to the country. A general condemnation will not deprive such a man of his power for mischief. Personally, I think that this House is to be congratulated upon the moderation of the Government in these matters.
  That there was not more emergency legislation of this kind is, I think, creditable to the Government and to us as showing that there was no sense of panic actuating this House in those dark days of August last. Besides that, no Amendment would really touch the case to which the hon. Member referred, unless the Act were repealed. The Amending Bill does not touch it, and if I may say so, although I have no doubt there will always be hard cases, the case to which the hon. Member referred was irrelevant to the discussion in which we are now engaged. Of course, we have been living in abnormal circumstances. I wish myself that in the country the feeling of the state of war were a little less distant and a little less dim. Except in regard to the rise in prices I do not believe that the country realises in the least the conditions such as they are experienced in France and Belgium. Surely this is a case where everybody expected that the ordinary law of the land would practically cease to operate in great spheres of human affairs! The late Sir William Anson, who was for so long our teacher in constitutional wisdom here, in his book on "Law and Custom of the Constitution," said that for the safety of the community it may be necessary to supersede the ordinary course of law and the action of the Courts. He pointed out that we might have to live, as we are living in a sense, under martial law, and that martial law is the reserve force which the community retains and applies for its own protection.
  There is one particular class in which I am interested who come in a peculiar way under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act. I mean those who are connected
  300
  with the newspaper Press. I do not think that gentleman of the Press ought to claim any greater privileges than any other class of His Majesty's subjects, and they do not claim them. But under the regulations that were framed, pressmen were particularly liable to prosecution, if not persecution. The 18th and 27th Orders touch them in a different way from that in which they do any other sort or condition of man. There were in some parts of the country arbitrary prosecutions by irate colonels. I have one in mind where a small man did suffer injustice, but I am glad to tell the House that it was soon rectified, and without the provisions of the present Bill. An undertaking was given by the War Office that no prosecutions of this sort before a court-martial should be undertaken except with the assent of those in high authority, who are able to judge of the gravity of the offence. So far as I know, every case which had a real base of injustice, of which complaint has been made, has been fairly met. Instances will occur where injustice is possible, and we cannot ask more in these matters than that we shall have a ready hearing. I want to ask the Attorney-General whether he does not think that, in the interest of pressmen as well as of other people, he should define much more clearly what the right of the subject will be under Clause 1 of the Amending Bill? A person ought to know what the charge against him is, and the charge ought to be stated in writing. That would be only in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879. He ought also to be informed of his right to exercise the option to be tried before the Civil Courts. No doubt the Attorney-General will say that that is implied in the first Sub-section.
  Sir J. SIMON: I meant to say, and I think I did say, that we intended to meet the point which the hon. Member is now putting by providing, in the regulations to be made under the Act, that at the same time that a man is given notice of the general nature of the charge, he should be given notice of his rights under the Section. I have not seen the draft yet, but I know that that is the intention.
  Mr. LAWSON: I suggest that that should be embodied in the Clause. There can be no difficulty about it. I would prefer that the Attorney-General should put the Amendments on the Paper. With these Amendments, the class for whom I speak, who are deeply interested in

  301
  this sort of legislation, are satisfied with the Bill as now drafted. They are not afraid that there will be injustice, but they think that this Amendment is opportune, if not necessary. I think the whole country—and I agree with my right hon. Friend—will rejoice to think that we have come to a time when the Executive Government proposes that we should return more nearly to the normal state of things. Nobody can wish to live indefinitely under conditions of martial law. If the Government think it is safe that we should re-establish the old safeguards, according to the old precedents, well, then, I think it is a very happy thing for us to be able to do so. I do think that this Bill in its provisions does restore those safeguards, while, at the same time, I do not believe for a moment it will endanger the safety of the Realm in any particular whatsoever.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am bound to say that I agree to some extent with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland when he says that this Bill was really introduced because of the strictures of eminent lawyers in the other House, who pointed out how seriously our ordinary liberties are infringed by the original Bill. I do not think that this House is to blame. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Bench that this Bill was in its original form, really passed by common consent in this House. What really happened was this: Last autumn the House of Commons quite readily, in its patriotic anxiety to make everything easy for the Government in the time of crisis, abrogated its ordinary right of criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Really, the responsibility for this Bill lies with the Government, who, I am bound to say, should have understood how serious the infringement of our ordinary liberties was in the Bill in its original form. However, as it stands now, the Amending Bill is a retraction in the main which fulfils the purpose of restoring the rights of civil trial to British citizens. What we ask, and want, is that so long as the ordinary Civil Courts are sitting Army officers shall not be the judges of our lives and liberties. I agree that the Bill is, in the main, satisfactory. There are, however, one or two points of insecurity and limitation in it which I should like to see amended. I should like to refer to Subsection (5), to which the Attorney-General alluded. Under Sub-section (1) officers are no longer necessarily the judges of our
  302
  lives and liberties, but in Sub-section (5) it is left open to the Government, if it likes, to seize a moment of excitement and panic to reimpose the existing regulations. The Sub-section runs:—
  "In the event of invasion or other special emergency arising out of the present War, His Majesty may by Proclamation forthwith suspend the operation of this Section."
  What might happen under that might be that the Government seizing, it may be, a momentary invasion of a very small kind, might impose martial law over a great part of the country. I do not see why they should not, adhering to their own principles, which they have just laid down, make the Clause to run something like this:—
  "In the event of invasion or other special emergency …. whereby the Civil Courts are rendered unavailable."
  That is, I take it, the point upon which they agree: that where the Civil Courts are available a British subject should be allowed to resort to them, and I hope that they will be ready to accept an Amendment in that sense. In regard to Subsection (1) I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that he is going to secure in some way or other that in the case of a man who is arrested or charged, it shall be made clear to him at once that he can ask to be tried in the Civil Courts. That meets the one other point that I wished to raise. I should also like my right hon. Friend to consider further a question to which he referred in his speech. I do not see why this should be confined to British subjects, and I doubt if it is wise to do so. I do not see why neutral and allied subjects ought to come under special military jurisdiction so long as the Civil Courts are available. There may be, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, some rather small practical difficulties; but I think the point of policy is more important than the practical point. What would the United States say if a citizen of that States were arrested, arbitrarily tried and punished under a law which we admit is not good enough for a Canadian—or French or Belgians punished under a law which we admit is not good enough for Boers or Indians who are British citizens? I am not pleading for it for enemy aliens. I simply ask for it as a reasonable concession to our Allies and to neutrals. I think it is illogical and unreasonable not to extend it to them. I have no other criticism of the Bill, but I hope my right hon. Friend will, as the House accepts very readily the general principles of the Bill, accept some alterations.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I agree with much that has fallen from my hon. Friend. I should like, first of all, to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General and the Government for bringing in this Bill, and for bringing it in in a form which will admit of expansion and amendment, which I hope the Government will be prepared most carefully to consider. I quite agree with the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member on the opposite side of the House, who in his speech, said that this is not the time for elaborate research, and certainly not the time for rhetoric in regard to the freedom of the subject. At the same time we ought to bear in mind that the action of the Government and of this House—for as the Attorney-General said, everyone of us had a share in passing this Act—is entirely without a parallel in the history of our country. A hundred years or more ago, when this country was in many respects engaged in a greater struggle and more dangerous to the State than to-day, there was no abolition of trial by jury in England. That was at a time when there was quite a considerable section of the people opposed to the war, and a very much larger section of the people rightly exasperated by the methods of repression which will always be a blot on the memory of Mr. Pitt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] In those days, when the position was much more difficult, there was nothing precisely like this Act which was passed a few months ago. Therefore, when the Government comes forward, as they do this afternoon, to restore the rights of civil tribunals, I think His Majesty's Executive may feel sure that their action will be welcomed—and is welcomed—in all parts of the House.
  What I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend is this: Is it necessary, on the principles he has laid down, and in accordance with the arguments that he has used, to limit the Bill to its present form? His argument about trial by jury in a matter of serious crime is that it may lead to delay. He proposes to guard against that by taking powers to lay the venue of the trial wherever the Government think well. That that is done is no argument for delay. Under this Bill, let us say, a man accused of a serious crime may ask to be tried by jury. You are, by your other provisions, enabling that to be done without delay. If that can be done without delay where a man asks for it, what need is there to put upon anybody the choice of asking for it? Why not let
  304
  all these cases as a matter of course come to be tried by jury, provided you have the regulations, to which the Attorney-General referred, which would secure that that trial would be prompt, that there would be no delay dangerous to the State in any case? I am not sure that my right hon. Friend, lucid as we all know him to be, quite explained with sufficient precision why any delay of a dangerous character is involved in these charges being tried by the Civil Courts. If the person charged with an offence of a serious character under this Act cannot be dealt with by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the alternative is a court-martial, or, if he chooses to be tried by a Civil Court, by a jury.
  Nobody is asking that a man charged with so serious an offence as that should be lightly, or at all, let out on bail. He should be kept in custody, and so would be unable to continue or to repeat his offence until such time as the proper Civil Court could sit and try him. Therefore, surely if you have the power of having the charge taken expeditiously, the whole argument based on the suggestion of delay is gone, and what possible reason remains for putting any person charged with these offences to his choice as to whether or not he should be tried by jury? In other words, what need is there at all to supersede the Civil Courts after you have made provision for their acting promptly in these matters? The mere fact that a man has to be asked to be tried by the Civil Court is dangerous and has a tendency to supersede judicial authority and to exalt the military under circumstances, by the admission of the Government, in which there is no need. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that one of the reasons for keeping courts-martial for these cases where a man did not choose to be tried by jury was to keep alive the machinery of military justice which had been created under the Act. Surely that machinery is not subject to rust and decay because it is not used for a certain number of months or in a certain number of cases? If you have the machinery there where it is necessary, surely it will make no difference whether it is used once a week, or whether there is no occasion ten use it for months?
  When we come to the Committee stage, I, for one, will, if necessary, table an Amendment—and I should certainly support an Amendment—which will restore trial by jury absolutely in these cases,

  305
  subject to the necessary provision for promptitude. If that be a danger, I would then ask that the option should be the other way, and that a man should be tried by the Civil Courts unless he himself asks to be tried by court-martial—for the reason, it may be, that that may possibly be more prompt. May I support—I think I see the difficulties of the case—what has been said by my hon. Friend who spoke last with regard to the extension of this Act to alien subjects and to neutrals. Surely one of the elements in the great influence of England in the counsels of Europe is the reputation of her judicial system, and the fact that the benefits, rights, and privileges of Englishmen under it have been extended to the subjects of friendly nations. I believe in this great struggle, in which we are called to act as closely as possible with our Allies, we should gain more by this proof of our confidence in their subjects than we should risk by the possible cases to which the Attorney-General referred. The other main point of the Bill is the power taken by the Government under Sub-section (5) to repeal this Bill at a moment's notice over any part, or the whole of the country, and for as long as they like. This does, indeed, remind one of the fact that this is an unheard-of power to be given to the Executive of this Government—unheard of at any time, so far as I know, within English history. Everyone is willing to give the Government the powers necessary to save the State, but is this necessary? We are told that the country might be invaded, and then it would be impossible for the Civil Courts to act. I would support my hon. Friend in his suggestion that this should only apply when the Civil Courts are not available and cannot be available. The only time when military law ought to apply to civilians is surely only when the Civil Courts are impossible.
  And would it not be more in accordance, I would not say with our traditions, but with those civic rights on which we pride ourselves, if a decision on that point were come to, not by the Executive Government, but by the head of the judiciary? It is impossible, and even inconceivable, that within half a day any large part of England could be occupied by the enemy. If they ever landed at all, if they landed a large force, even if they landed with all possible means of transport, there would still elapse a number of hours before their control of any considerable part of England could destroy the machinery of the
  306
  ordinary judiciary of the country. Therefore, I would ask the Government whether they ought not, in the first place, to accept what my hon. Friend suggested to us, namely, that it should only apply when the Civil Courts are not available; and, in the next place, that it should only be put into force on a receipt of a certificate from the Lord Chief Justice, as head of the judiciary of this country, that Criminal Courts cannot be held, or that criminal justice is at an end for the time being. If you had some declaration as to the inability of the civil justice of the country to be kept in being from the head of those responsible for civil justice, then the practical result would be the same, and you would have safeguarded the inviolable right of Englishmen to be tried by civil justice except when that is physically and practically impossible. Those are additions and modifications to this Bill which I would earnestly press upon the Government. It is not a case of this Bill being sought to be amended by Members of this House or anyone in the country out of sympathy with the efforts, the most powerful and successful efforts, of the Government to prosecute the War and maintain the integrity of the country. We all support the Government to the utmost of our power in those objects which are dear to us and dear to them, but we do ask them to show that they are prepared to restore to the people of this country the right of their ancient and civil tribunals, to give it in the largest measure, and to extend it if possible to the subjects of friendly Powers, and not take it away by a stroke of the pen of the Executive, but only when the heads of the judiciary consider it impossible any longer to carry on that civil justice, which we should surely have as long and as free as possible.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am sure the House is grateful to the Attorney-General for the very clear and succinct way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. But there is one point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and one only, to which I wish to draw attention. He referred in an almost semi-apologetic fashion to the fact that the benefit of this Bill was confined to British subjects. I agree with what has been said by some hon. Members on the other side that it might be desirable to extend the benefit of this Bill to members of those States who are fighting with us at the moment as our Allies, and certainly to that I personally

  307
  would have no objection whatever. But what I should venture to suggest to the Government is that there are some British subjects who are not entitled to the benefit of this. There are persons, nominally British subjects, who are of Austrian, German, and Turkish nationality, and who have been naturalised within a very few years, or perhaps within quite a recent time. I say that those persons, although they are entitled to call themselves British subjects, ought not to claim the benefit of this Bill, except under some restriction. In the first place, I should say that no person of German, Austrian, or Turkish nationality ought to be entitled to get the benefit of the Bill unless he can prove two things—first, that he has been naturalised before some recent period, say, two or three years; and, secondly, unless he can establish that he has definitely abandoned his original nationality. Let me take these two points separately. It is notorious that many persons of German and Austrian nationality, especially German, have been naturalised within an exceedingly recent date, some of them even since the commencement of the War—chauffeurs and I dare say many others who could be mentioned—and I do submit to the Government that here you are giving distinctly British privileges in accordance with British traditions and the freedom which Britishers have won. Why should you give that right to persons of foreign nationality whose fellow-subjects are fighting against us at this moment, unless they have been naturalised for some considerable period, and have thereby earned the protection of those laws which are purely British?
  Therefore, I would suggest that the Government might very well confine the privilege given by this Bill to those foreign persons who have been naturalised not less than two or three years. Again, there are many cases—and, indeed, the Home Secretary told us about it this afternoon—as to which it is difficult to say whether a foreign subject who has been naturalised in this country has lost his original nationality. If he has not lost his original nationality, is there any reason why he should claim the benefit of this Bill? I grant you, if he can come and say, "I have been naturalised two or three years since, I have divested myself entirely of my foreign nationality, and I have done my very best to become a British subject,
  308
  not merely in name but in substance," then he might be given the benefit of this Bill. I suggest the words "British subject" are in one respect, perhaps, a little too narrow, because we ought to include in the benefits of the Bill subjects of the Allied Powers, and in other respects it is somewhat broad, because it gives to those who have done nothing whatever to deserve them the characteristics and rights which properly belong to British subjects.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I should like to join in the recognition which has been given to the Government for its action in introducing this amending measure. It is a great improvement on the Bill, which was passed last Session, and restores the safeguards for the administration of justice. I think it would be well for the Government to consider the suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Mile-End (Mr. Harry Lawson), that the provision that an offender should be informed of his right to trial, secured by this Amending Bill, should be embodied in the Bill, and not left to the regulations. I cannot join with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan) in throwing upon the Ministry alone the responsibility for the previous main measure. The Executive was bound to ask for those powers which it thought necessary, and it was for the House to take the responsibility of granting them, with or without safeguards, as it might consider necessary. We were indebted to the great constitutional lawyers in another place who awoke the public conscience to the danger of hasty legislation, breaking age-long traditions of liberty. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) seemed to think this was an argument for the hereditary Chamber. I do not at all agree with him because each one of the voices which were raised in another place was that of a statesman who had learned his politics in this House, and not what might be called a typical member of that body. We ought, indeed, to safeguard the great principle of the separation of the administration of the law from the Executive, so that justice may be administered by Civil Courts so long as those Civil Courts are available, and that right should only lapse when the country may be considered to be in mortal peril, and it should be resumed at the earliest moment when the Courts are available.
  My attention was drawn more especially to this subject by its relation to the Press,

  309
  but I consider that that should be entirely subordinate to considerations of public welfare. I would, however, point out that the Press is specially open to interference, seeing that every line is open to the public and every word is on record. However, for them I think no special privilege should be claimed, and I make no claim at all of that character; but I do think they are entitled to demand two things—fair opportunity of proving their innocence, and equal administration of the law. As to the first, this change of the law is entirely beneficial, both to persons charged and, I think, also to the Army and Admiralty authorities. The Defence of the Realm Act was passed by this House, but under that Act many regulations have been made inventing new crimes and offences, and "an offence against these regulations" may even involve penal servitude for life, or actually the death penalty. The penalty may be limited if an offender proves absence of intention to assist the enemy or prejudice recruiting and other matters. But surely a Civil Court is much the better judge of the "intention" of an offender.
  5.0 P.M.
  The great body of Regulations which have been issued appear to me to show the impress of the Army Council and the Admiralty. A military authority is to put them in force; a Military Court is to adjudicate upon them. It is a very heavy burden at a time when they are suffering very great stress. It may be inevitable in a conquered or occupied territory, but where the Civil Courts are available I hold that it is for the benefit of the military authorities that they should be relieved from this duty, and the Civil Courts, with all their traditions and all their safeguards as to procedure and admission of evidence and various other matters, ought to be open. I do not complain of the administration of the law and the enforcement of the regulations; in fact, I should rather say that, if we have to complain at all, it is of the laxity of the enforcement of the regulations that have been made in some cases rather than the severity. Possibly the substitution of a Civil Court may lead the Army Council and others who have to decide as to prosecutions to be more courageous in preventing unequal recourse to the Censor. When the military authorities are the lawgivers, the prosecutors, and the judge and jury, they may well hesitate to challenge public opinion by
  310
  prosecutions. I wonder whether it would be possible for the measures to secure obedience to regulations to be carried further than they are in this Bill, and whether the Army and Admiralty authorities might be further relieved of the duty of deciding in these matters. This is surely becoming more and more important as our shores are becoming more closely girdled by war operations. Take the points connected with the operations of submarines. Information as to submarines is not to be given until it is released by the Censor. That is one of the cases for which prosecutions will take place under this Act. The Censor may be asked to release the news of a submarine raid on some coast. This is a case which has come within my knowledge in which the news was courteously refused by the Censor, but another paper published about half a column of the news, and I presume that particular paper had never asked whether it was of military importance that that news should not be published. I wonder what steps were taken to meet out justice between those two papers. I have not heard of any court-martial which has been held in the second case.
  There is another case which has come under my notice. There was a court-martial on some military offence which was held in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh "Evening News" asked leave to publish a report of this news. No reply was given, but the news was published in the "Mail" on the following day, I presume without leave having been asked for its release. News which had been refused to South Shields has been published in Newcastle. This is not a question of Liberal or Conservative. There are cases in connection with the "Daily News" and other papers being refused news, and they would not put their own personal case before this House. Nevertheless, they have been refused news, and that news has been published in the "Mail" and in the "Times." Persons the most blatantly loyalistic are often most careless in these matters, and the most offensively self-righteous in defending public rights by publishing news suppressed elsewhere. I take it that these cases are really much more fit for a judge and jury than for a court-martial, and it would please me much better if the responsibility for securing the proper carrying out of these regulations were entrusted to some other body than the Army Council or the Admiralty. Let them decide as to

  311
  the necessity, or otherwise, for the suppression of news. Let them be the sole judges in this matter. As a member of the Press I would support them absolutely, and I would not challenge their decisions at all. I do not think pressmen in general are the best judges as to whether news ought to be given or not. This is a matter in which the Admiralty and the Army Council ought to be absolutely responsible, and when they come to a decision I think the whole of the Press ought to be made to adhere to that decision, and they ought to submit to the regulations which have been made for the submission of such news to the Censor. If the publication of certain news is so indifferent that after publication has been refused a breach of secrecy is considered not worth noticing, then I think that news ought not to have been withheld. If publication is so indifferent let it be published, and do not leave it open to the most daring pressmen, who disregard official requests, to have the opportunity of gaining kudos from the public, and obtaining an unjust reputation of enterprise in securing news. I hope that this Amendment of the law will tend to secure justice when prosecutions are undertaken, and may lead to an improvement in the administration of the Censorship.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an interesting speech, but I think it is one which touched only slightly upon the general course of this Debate. There is, of course, a great deal to be said about the administration of the Press Bureau, and whether prosecutions should, or should not, be directed by the Press Bureau, or rather by the Army Council or the Admiralty, or somebody else. But I do not know that such questions are very closely connected with this Bill, because there is nothing in this measure which deals with that side of the question at all. I think it would be for Mr. Speaker to decide whether an Amendment of that kind would be in order under this Bill. I wish to say a few words about the general principle of this Bill with which, on the whole, I am in hearty agreement. I am afraid that I am not quite so devoted a worshipper of trial by jury as some hon. Members opposite. I do most thoroughly agree that nothing would be more disastrous than that we should have anything like a permanent subjection of this country to military justice. It is not
  312
  because I like it more that I have less affection for trial by jury, but in times of popular excitement this is a matter to be very carefully considered when it is argued that the liberty of the individual is best secured by unrestricted trial by jury. If hon. Members opposite will cast their minds back over the least creditable chapters of our judicial history, I think they will agree with me that they have always been enacted under trial by jury. Take, for example, the Popish plot and the Bloody Assizes. In both those cases there was no suspension of trial by jury. The same also applies to the prosecutions under the Six Acts. I am sure that at the present time no one wishes to return to the Six Acts which many people regard as a very serious period of judicial tyranny. They were carried out entirely by the machinery of trial by jury.
  I want to say, as a caution to hon. Members opposite, it is not quite certain that trial by jury is the real palladium of English freedom which some people think it is. I feel myself that if I were accused unjustly under the Defence of the Realm Act I should have some little difficulty in deciding whether I would rather be tried by a really well constituted and strong Military Court rather than by a jury inflamed, as it probably would be, under such circumstances, by burning passion and subject at least as much to panic as officers of the Army would be. I think very strongly that the less exceptional legislation you have in this country the better. I am very glad the Government are consulting the Naval and Military authorities in this matter. I feel that what I have said just now applies to the speech of the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir W. Adkins). He was very anxious to have trial by jury everywhere, with a provision in Sub-section (3) providing that anybody might be tried anywhere. I confess in that matter that I am in sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone), who said that the danger of injustice seems to be much greater if you have trial by jury a long way from your home, where you would find difficulty in getting hold of your witnesses and where you could not get them to the Court. I think it would be preferable to be tried even by an inferior tribunal actually in the place where you live. I should very much regret a change in the law such as the hon. Member indicated. I think persons charged with these offences

  313
  should be given the opportunity of being tried in the locality where people know them and where they can get hold of their witnesses without difficulty rather than being placed on trial at a Court a long distance from their homes. I hope the Government will give very careful consideration to the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland and see if they cannot meet the point by resorting to special commissions if necessary, which I imagine will come within the constitutional competence of the Crown. For this purpose a short clause might be introduced requiring that a person might be tried in a place where he is known.
  I very strongly hope that the Government will assent also to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tower Hamlets (Mr. Lawson), that in the Bill itself shall be placed the obligation on the part of the authorities to inform the person accused of his rights. That is done, I think, in cases under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, where a man is charged and where he is told that he need not say anything unless he likes. That is all put into the Act, and it is far more satisfactory than putting it into the regulations. I want to say a word or two about the argument used by the hon. Member for Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan). He proposed that Sub-section (5) should be limited to the case where the Civil Courts were not in operation. If you do that you will take away the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act where the Civil Courts are not in operation, as the Attorney-General pointed out quite truly, by the ordinary constitutional rights, because where the Civil Courts are not in operation martial law does operate and courts-martial come into existence. The hon. Member for Middleton can scarcely have reflected upon the serious nature of the change he recommended, even in the case where the certificate of the Lord Chief Justice is necessary. Under the guise of strengthening the Executive the hon. Member really weakens the right of the Executive in a way which would be totally impracticable, because the Civil Courts would not be in operation under the assumed state of affairs. The district would be actually in the occupation of the military authorities and nobody would pay the slightest attention to the Lord Chief Justice or anybody else under those circumstances. Military authorities would have to keep order as a matter of military necessity.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The certificate of the Lord Chief Justice that the Court should not sit would apply to that district only, and there would be no danger of it being applied to those parts of the country where the Courts could sit.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that in a time of invasion or of a great emergency of that kind it would be very likely desirable to put the country under martial law in large districts which were not immediately the subject of military occupation and in which for many purposes the Civil Courts would go on. That is really the whole purpose of this provision. Suppose the Germans invaded us and the Government had reason to suppose there were disaffected persons in other areas outside military occupation who might greatly impede our operations and be a serious danger to the State. That is one of the cases undoubtedly aimed at. It is a case where you want to punish the man rapidly and severely in order to prevent anything like a serious danger to the armed Forces of the Crown; and to confine the operation of this Sub-section to those parts of the country where the Civil Courts had ceased to operate does seem to me a very serious limitation on the value of this provision. It would amount, it seems to me, to a complete repeal of the previous Act which was passed. I should be quite willing to assent to that as soon as the military and naval authorities said that in their judgment it would be safe, but until that did happen I do not think this House would be wise in attempting to place such difficulties in the way of the defence of the country as such action would undoubtedly create.
  Mr. WALTER ROCH (indistinctly heard): I am afraid that I hold more old-fashioned views as regards trial by jury than were contained in some of the remarks expressed by the Noble Lord, and I think he will agree with me that many eminent judges have placed much more complete faith in juries than in their learned friends. It may be that they knew their learned friends very well.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They were able to make juries do exactly what they chose.
  Mr. ROCH: Judging from the Debate this afternoon, there is a complete misapprehension as to the views held by Members who are urging the restoration of the civil authority and the Civil Courts. It is not the wish of those Members that any malefactor should get off. The most

  315
  curious assumption seems to have been made that if you have a civil trial in these cases, people who should be punished will not be punished. That is not the view which we entertain, or indeed which we believe will be entertained by the civil authority. We think that the civil authority will administer justice with complete fairness and with as heavy a hand as might be done by the authorities of martial law. I wish the Attorney-General had taken the bold step and instead of adopting this halfway measure had adopted the Bill introduced by Lord Parmoor.
  Sir J. SIMON: The Bill introduced by Lord Parmoor does not go as far as this Bill. Lord Parmoor's Bill was limited. It entitled persons to be tried by jury if the offence was one under the criminal law of this country; but as most of the offences under the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act are new offences, it follows that Lord Parmoor's Bill does not cover anything like the same number of cases as this Bill covers.
  Mr. ROCH: I need hardly say that I do not want to argue a legal point with the Attorney-General, but I have looked through the Bill with my hon. Friends, and I am told that it will make punishable anything which is against the law of England, and I take it these regulations must be taken to be the law of England. The distinction I draw between this Bill and Lord Parmoor's Bill is that Lord Parmoor's Bill assumed that everybody as a matter of right could get trial by the civil authority, and did not assume that they should first go before the military authorities, and it then be open to them to exercise the option whether they should go before a civil tribunal. The Bill, as it stands, by no means does complete justice in the way of giving an appeal to the civil authority. Under the summary jurisdiction powers, when a case under these regulations comes before the magistrates, the right of appeal to a jury is gone. I wish the Attorney-General would go further, and, as has been urged from this side of the House, make this right of appeal applicable to all. I go further than anybody who has spoken this afternoon. I cannot for the life of me see why even an alien enemy as well as anyone else should not have a fair trial according to our ideas. I do not think that even the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) would wish a naturalised chauffeur to be condemned
  316
  unjustly. I do not think he would say there is any privilege in the matter of fair trial which should not be given to anybody irrespective of nationality. The Attorney-General, indeed, rather suggested that the British tradition was that British justice should only apply to Britishers. I do not like to argue principles of law with the Attorney-General, but, according to my reading of the' traditions of British justice, it was applicable to all. On the historic occasion when that question arose Lord Mansfield declared that British justice was for all on British soil. A fair trial should be given to everyone who comes under the law of this country.
  There is one point which arises under the Defence of the Realm Act which has not been alluded to this afternoon. It is obvious to people who have read the regulations under the Act that the widest powers are given to the military authorities to requisition property and remove people out of certain districts. No one suggests that is not a power with which they should not be armed, but surely they were armed with it already under the common law of the country. Under the common law of the country they are at liberty to do anything which the requirements of the defence of the realm require. Let hon. Members mark the difference. Under the common law, while those powers were given to the military authorities, they were safeguarded by the fact that if they were not exercised in good faith and in a reasonable and proper manner the people who exercised them were subject to the civil authority of the Courts. That safeguard has now gone, and here we have the complete rule of military law.
  While I am not suggesting there is any danger that as a common case they will not act properly, still the object of legislation is to provide for the exceptional case and to give power to deal with the exceptional man who does not act in a proper way. Now, if these very wide powers are not exercised properly, the military authorities have complete immunity. Therefore, one of those valuable privileges and safeguards which will only require to be exercised as a reserving force to prevent these things is to be done away with, and there is complete power given to the military authorities which the wisdom of the common law has never given. There is another detail to which I should like to draw attention.

  317
  In Sub-clause (5) the Attorney-General asks that he should have power to restore martial law in the event of invasion or other special emergency. Would that special emergency law arise, say, in the case of a strike? If it is a case of invasion we should all agree that he should have every power he requires, but people would hesitate a long time before they would say that, as a matter of policy, the right way and the wisest way in the long run to deal with a strike would be to declare martial law under the powers which this Bill gives.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have no doubt that a strike would not, in itself, be a special emergency under the Clause. It has got to arise out of the present War.
  Mr. ROCH: That might well occur. Suppose there was a strike, for instance, on the Clyde?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am only expressing an opinion, but a strike, whether it arose out of the present War or not, would not be within the Clause. General civil commotion, or a riot, or some immediate apprehended danger, is what is meant.
  Mr. ROCH: If that is clear, I have not a word to say. I only wished to call attention to a doubt which had arisen in my mind with regard to the matter. I was rather sorry at some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech. He based his whole argument for full complete martial law on two points. I would respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman that necessity has been the argument used by every tyrant when he wanted to increase his power, and I have no doubt if he had been an Attorney-General in the time of Charles I. he would have used the argument of necessity. Another argument he used in favour of this martial law was rapidity. I cannot see what is the necessity for rapidity. I should have said that the advantage of rapidity is much more real for the prisoner than for the man who prosecutes. Under our ordinary law, if a malefactor is arrested he stays in prison, if it is a serious case, until he is tried. Therefore, the whole advantage of rapid trial is entirely on the side of the prisoner, and not the prosecution at all. I hope that even now the Attorney-General will do all he can to make this Bill a complete going back to the old status quo, and that he will give a complete restoration of the civil authority.
  318
  The plea of necessity is all very well, but we cannot get away from the fact that, whether we do a thing from great necessity or not, it is a precedent for the future, and a serious one. It may be that the necessity is such and so great that there is no other course open to us, but, unless there is the gravest necessity, I do hope that, so far as possible, precedents of this nature will not be made. After all, this will be a precedent. We all know that when this War is over there may be before us serious labour troubles. Does anybody doubt that many things like this which we are doing now will be quoted, and I am afraid will be used as a means of oppression? It is because you cannot avoid making these things precedents that I do earnestly hope, while the gravest necessity may make the making of these serious precedents a thing which must be done, the Attorney-General and the Government will, as far as possible, shrink from making precedents for oppression, which may be used in a fatal way.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I wish to associate myself with those who have paid a sincere compliment to the Attorney-General for the lucidity and clearness of his explanations of the Bill; but there is a matter which to me is a subject for even greater admiration, and that is the ingenuity with which he screened the actual situation in which we stand. What is the actual situation? We find now, as has been found elsewhere, that a grave mistake has been made, and that, in the haste and hurry with which we passed legislation soon after the commencement of the War, we seriously invaded some of the most valued and invaluable constitutional rights we possess in this country. We did not make the discovery ourselves—let us do this justice to the other House. The discovery was made there, that this serious invasion had been committed on our constitutional rights, and that the English Constitution had, to that extent, been seriously impaired. In summing up the advantages which he claimed for this amendment of the Act the Attorney-General said it preserved the machinery for securing military justice. That is undoubtedly so. It also avoids delays, but subject to one limitation which is found in respect of the last portion of Sub-section (3), in which there is an enlargement of the ordinary right, a prisoner to be tried either where the crime was committed, or where he was arrested. There may be a change of venue. The concluding

  319
  words of the Sub-section are, "Or to which he may be brought for the purpose of trial" are objectionable and unnecessary. It need not be assumed from those words that he would be taken for trial to a remote part of the country, yet there is the possibility of the exercise of such an arbitrary power.
  The third advantage claimed by the Attorney-General for the Amendment is that it restores the right of trial by jury. After all, that is the main object of this Bill. It has been found that what has been hitherto supposed to be a great guarantee of the freedom of the subject—fair trial before judge and jury—has been parted with, and therefore the Attorney-General very properly proposes to restore it. I am not one of those who altogether agree with the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in the views he expressed with regard to the system of trial by jury. After a somewhat large experience of juries, I am of opinion that whatever may have been the eccentricities, or exhibitions of passion or prejudices in the past, it may be said that in these more modern liberal-minded times, under the direction of a just judge, we are still safe in the hands of a common jury. That question is not seriously involved, however, because there seems to be a consensus of opinion in the House that there should be a restoration of that provision in the Constitution. But then we come to consider to whom this restoration of privilege should apply. The first Clause says to anyone "being a British subject." I would add, "and not owing allegiance to any foreign country." Possibly a qualification of that kind would enable us to get rid of the difficulty which has been suggested here, that it is possible for a man to become a naturalised British subject and yet retain his allegiance to his own country.
  I have considerable sympathy with some of the suggestions that have come from the other side. One was that we might extend trial by jury to citizens and subjects of the Allied Powers, and possibly to those of neutral nations. I would most certainly exclude from this privilege alien enemies—indeed, I do not think an alien enemy would care to claim it. He would think he would obtain far more justice from military and naval men than from a jury liable to prejudice against an alien. On the whole, I think the Bill is a necessary Bill and a thoroughly just Bill.
  320
  I do not at all take exception to Clause 5. It contains very large powers, but they may be very necessary powers. To suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in this country would, I believe, require the passage of a special Act of Parliament and the assent of the two Houses as well as of the Crown. If that be so—and I do not commit myself to that opinion—then we are here in advance giving powers by this Bill which are more extensive than those now required to suspend, for a time, that great bulwark of English liberty—the Habeas Corpus Act.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I make no objection to any of the regulations which have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act, or to the punishments which may be imposed. The punishment of death may be inflicted by court-martial for one of the offences under these regulations, and even to that I do not object. But I think it is not quite clearly understood in the country what are the crimes with which the courts-martial are to deal. They are not crimes in the ordinary sense of the word, they are offences by civilians against these regulations. Very stringent provision is made for the detection and prevention of offences. To that I do not object, but I do object to the constitution of the Court by which these offences are going to be tried. As has been stated by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), we object to the provisions for trial by court-martial, not because we are anxious or desirous in the slightest degree that there should be any doubt as to the effectiveness of the law to punish the offender, but our objection is to the Court and particularly when under the present regulations. If you are tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions. But when the nature of the offence is serious and the case is tried by court-martial, apparently the decision of that Court is to be final.
  We further object to the constitution of the Court. It is to be composed of officers who have neither knowledge of the law nor experience nor fitness for weighing evidence such as we naturally expect in every Court in this country. In the case of County Court judges and stipendiary magistrates it is necessary that the persons appointed should have had several years' experience. An applicant for such an office must, in the first place, be a barrister, and then he must have been in practice several years. If cases triable before stipendiary magistrates and if civil

  321
  actions tried in the. County Courts necessarily come before men whose appointment involves such qualifications as I have stated, there is every reason why the cases dealt with under this Bill should not be submitted to the Court of officers, particularly at a time when passion, feeling and prejudice is running so high. As a matter of fact, at the present moment we are handing over to military officers without any training or peculiar fitness the power of death over civilians in this country. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) suggested that he had no confidence, or rather not the necessary confidence, in a jury system.
  For several months a Committee, presided over by Lord Mersey, sat to consider this question of trial by jury. I was a member of that Committee, and I assert that not one single witness who appeared before us suggested the abolition of the jury system in criminal cases. Not one single witness, either from the bench or from the legal profession, made such a suggestion, and the Committee, in its report, certainly did not countenance the idea of the abolition of trial by jury in criminal cases. The two main reasons urged by the Attorney-General this evening in support of the Bill were, the question of national security and the necessity for a swift and effective method of dealing with offenders. I have never been quite able to understand how, in a time of great stress, when the services of all our military officers are needed at the front or for training troops, they can find the time necessary to exercise judicial functions. Then as to the swift and effective dealing with and punishment of offenders. Surely it is perfectly open for the Government, by special legislation, to authorise County Court judges, or stipendiary magistrates, or, indeed, High Court judges, to go round the country, if necessary, to exercise special powers and deal with offenders under this Act. If it is urged by the Government that the jury system is not the best system adapted for the purposes, I have no objection whatever to vote for a measure which would empower the Government to appoint either judges or barristers of experience and standing to act as special commissioners to deal with cases of this kind.
  In my opinion, there is a real and very serious menace to the liberty of the subject embodied in this Bill. We are establishing a precedent in particular circumstances, find, later on, when there is no War, and no prospect of invasion, that precedent
  322
  may be appealed to in cases of riot and civil commotion. I hope the Government, before the Bill leaves this House, will come to the conclusion that the better method of dealing with these offences would be to give power to the High Court judges to go on circuit and hold Assizes even when, in ordinary circumstances, Assizes would not be held.
  I would like to call the attention of the Attorney-General to Sub-section (1) of Clause 1. The Bill provides at the present moment that the accused shall be entitled "within four clear days from the time when the general nature of the charge is communicated to him," to claim to be tried by a Civil Court. The important question arises within what time that charge is to be communicated. Do not let us forget that the person is going to be arrested by the military authorities on the order of a military or naval authority, and it is very important indeed to us civilians to know within what time the authority which has ordered the arrest must also define and state the particulars of the charges which are going to be made against the accused. I am not dealing with a hypothetical case. There was a case recently at Hull where a British citizen had beer, arrested, had been in custody for some weeks, and was unable to obtain particulars of the charges to be brought against him. Ultimately application was made to the Court under the Habeas Corpus Act, and I am sorry to say the Civil Court refuse to interfere, although that British citizen had been for some weeks under arrest, and had not obtained any definite information as to the charges against him. I hope the Attorney-General will, before the Bill leaves this House, intimate that he will be prepared to accept the Amendment which I shall move, to the effect that the charges must be formulated against the offender within a certain number of days.
  Attention has already been drawn to another point which is of very great importance indeed to the poor man, namely, that the venue of his trial may be changed. My experience of the criminal law is not very extensive, but I have had some experience of the administration of the law in this country, and nobody who has been concerned in any case where the Crown has prosecuted has failed to realise to the full the disadvantages to which the accused is subject under present conditions. Money, talent, the production of witnesses and the finding of evidence;—all

  323
  these things are at the command of the Crown; but, on the other hand, the poor citizen has neither the time nor the money nor the friends by which that evidence or the witnesses can be produced. If to those disadvantages, which are incidental to his financial position, there is to be added the possibility of a change of venue, the poor citizen will have a very substantial ground of complaint against the Government. In regard to the right reserved to the Crown to abrogate the right we are going to give under this Bill merely by proclamation, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) deserves the serious attention of the Government. The right should not be vested in the Executive to decide whether or not an emergency has arisen when the right of the citizen to a civil trial should be abrogated. A very valuable suggestion that has been made is that some certificate or some agreement on the part of the head of the King's Bench Division should be obtained before the Government decide to put it into execution.
  Mr. NIELD: I disagree entirely with some of the observations of the last speaker so far as regards the prejudice a prisoner is under when the Crown prosecutes. Nowadays a prisoner has every possible facility, at the public expense, to have counsel to represent him and to get his witnesses. I see the hon. Member shakes his head, but those of us who have to deal with these matters constantly have these cases before us.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: It is purely optional on the part of the Court to allow a prisoner to have counsel.
  Mr. NIELD: Perhaps the hon. Member does not know that the application is generally made when the prisoner is under remand and is considered by the chairman of Quarter Sessions.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: And refused.
  Mr. NIELD: In no case is it refused if a primâ facie case is presented. Of course, if a prisoner holds his tongue at Petty Sessions and so conducts himself as to indicate that he has no answer to the charge, it is possible that when the depositions go to Quarter Sessions and an application is made that aid should be given to him at the public expense, it is naturally viewed with grave suspicion; but notwithstanding that, if the charge is a very serious one, the aid is forthcoming. I entirely disagree with the observation that
  324
  a prisoner is under any difficulty in that respect. I am not prepared to quarrel with the proposals of this Bill in the main, because until matters have advanced to a stage much further on than they are at present, extraordinary powers should not be given to tribunals other than the civil tribunals of the country. I was prevented by other duties from being in the House when the Attorney-General spoke, but I should have been glad to have heard whether he offered any explanation as to the number of courts-martial already held in this country. So far as one can judge, a good many of the offences which are the subject of proclamations under the Defence of the Realm Act have already been dealt with by civil tribunals, and a good many of them in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and in respect of offences which might have involved heavy sentences.
  I notice that the Bill does not propose to interfere at all in cases which come under Courts of Summary Jurisdiction. I wish to take exception to the idea indicated by some Members that justice is not possible in the case of a Military Court. No doubt the House remembers that every Military Court has its Marshal, its representative of the Judge Advocate, to advise the Court. I myself was present at almost the whole of the proceedings when the spy Lody was tried, and never was a tribunal conducted with more regard to the rules of evidence. It is true that there were eminent counsel on both sides, but the whole trial was conducted precisely in the same way as it would be before a judge of Assize. The rules of justice are the same whether the Court is a military or a civil one, and the public mind ought to be disabused of any suggestion that a different code is administered, so far as regards the justice meted out to prisoners.
  Observations have been made with respect to the jury system. I am inclined to share the view held by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that juries are not always immaculate bodies before whom you can try cases. Although there is no demand to abolish the jury system in any case of criminal trials, I am not sure that we cannot get some indication, from those cases where a prisoner charged before a Petty Sessions Court has a right to go to a jury, of what the prisoner thinks of the jury system when so many of them elect to be tried summarily before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. So far as civil cases are concerned, it is common knowledge that even when a case is down for

  325
  hearing by a jury it frequently happens that by consent of both parties the jury are discharged before being sworn.
  However, I agree that in these very exceptional circumstances we ought not to abrogate the right to a trial by jury as a main principle guiding the judicature of this country. With regard to the Bill itself, there are one or two points which are Committee points; for instance, I should like to know what is meant by the general nature of the charge being communicated to the prisoner. Sometimes the final charge is not ultimately formulated until some time after the prisoner has been in custody and before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. When he is not taken before a Civil Court, but is taken before a court-martial at once, I assume that the time for formulating the charge will be the moment of his arrest or immediately after it; therefore he can claim the right at once. But in the case of a charge which brings the prisoner before the stipendiary magistrate or before a Court of Petty Sessions, apparently the time for appeal will have gone. That matter is deserving of the attention of the Attorney-General, and the Government should take care that charges shall be dealt with separately.
  If, after the opening of the case and as it develops, other offences are found to have been committed, the two charges should be treated as being entirely separate and the man should have the opportunity of claiming a trial by jury in respect of the new charge, quite independent of the one he already knows and in respect of which he has lost his right to have a jury. Some of the observations already made have turned upon the possibility of a change of venue. The place of trial should either be the place where the act complained of is committed or the place of arrest, and a prisoner ought not, unless in exceptional circumstances, be liable to have the venue changed simply at the will of the Executive. At the present time applications for a change of venue have to be made to judges of the High Court, and if exceptional cases arise that course ought to be followed even under the proceedings under this Bill. Clause 1, Sub-section (4), deals with a case where the evidence fails to disclose a complete charge of felony, but does show a charge of treason. The Clause should be amended by inserting a provision that in that case a verdict of treason should be returned. I agree the times are exceptional,
  326
  but they are not so exceptional as to justify the taking away of the right, to a trial by jury where the prisoner desires to have a jury, and that time is not likely to come until matters have advanced considerably beyond the present stage.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Serious complaint has been made to me by varoius Members of the Press of the inequality of treatment in respect of the publication of news.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Censor. I do not see how it comes under this Bill.
  Mr. PRICE: It is a question of prosecution, and the refusal to permit publication of information in one case which has been allowed in another. It depends upon the Executive how far prosecution should be instituted. It is only that aspect of the matter with which I wish to deal.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that arises under this Bill. This is a Bill which proposes to give the right to trial by jury in certain cases. I do not see how that is relevant to the question why certain newspapers should or should not have been prosecuted in the past.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On the point of Order. The Bill is to amend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act. That Act deals with regulations with regard to the dissemination of news. Any person who offends against those regulations will be tried by court-martial under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it is a matter of complaint among some Members of this House, of whom I am not one, that this Bill does not amend the Act in regard to the regulations relating to the dissemination of news.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It does not purport to do that. That matter is not within the four corners of the Bill, and it is a totally different thing. The object of this is limited; it is not intended to amend all the regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the matter raised by the hon. Member is outside it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would it not be possible under the Title to move an Amendment extending the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No.
  Mr. PRICE: If you rule, Sir, that the matter is not in order, I shall not pursue it further. I only wished to make a reference to the same subject dealt with by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin)

  327
  and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), who are both members of the Press, and were allowed to express their views. I shall not follow up the matter, although I was expressly asked to do so by a member of the Press who is not a Member of this House. The communication I have received contains the following paragraph, which perhaps the Attorney-General will think deserving of attention:
  "I would also point out that Regulation 51 gives the military authorities power 'where a report or statement in contravention of Regulation 27 has appeared in any newspaper' to seize the 'type or plant used or capable of being used for the printing or production of such newspaper, and to destroy or otherwise dispose of it.'"
  The observation made on that point by this newspaper is:—
  "This is a most serious and menacing provision. I need hardly point out that an indiscreet local commander might ruin an important newspaper property by seizing and destroying the type, etc., notwithstanding that the infraction of Regulation 27 might have been inadvertent"
  6.0 P.M.
  It is to that point that I specially wish to call the attention of the Attorney-General, and I would ask him how far the Bill meets it? I am aware that the hon. Member for Mile End made some suggestion, but I did not catch the reply of the Attorney-General as to whether he would make this Amendment in the Bill. If that can be done, it will give great satisfaction to those who make this complaint. I should also like to suggest to the Attorney-General that the regulations under the Bill should be laid upon the Table of the House or printed before the Bill is passed. We shall then see how far these new regulations dovetail with the Act and how far they meet objections which had been raised to-day. Reference was also made to distrust in the Executive. You must always have a certain amount of confidence in your Executive at a time like this, and while some acts of injustice may be done, it is very necessary in some cases that justice should be very quickly dealt out.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to draw attention to the power which is reserved to the Executive to summarily remove a man's trial to any part of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that that is in effect, although it may not be from a sentimental point of view, a greater hardship for a prisoner than trying him before a court-martial. It appears to me that if a man is charged with an offence in the county of Northumberland, if the Executive has the absolute power to have
  328
  him tried wherever they think fit, whether it is the excuse of having it sooner or later, perhaps later in the particular case in point—if they have him tried in Devonshire, a grave injustice might be done. It has been pointed out that in all cases, as the law now stands, you may have to go to the High Court and get the authority of the High Court to change the venue for the trial of a prisoner, and it is a very serious matter indeed to take away the liberty of the subject, which we are supposed to be putting back in this Bill, in that drastic manner if the venue can be moved.
  There is another point. We have had a discussion to-day as to who is to be entitled to the benefit of this Bill. The Bill itself says it must be a British subject. It is very properly pointed out that the British subject referred to in the Bill might for instance be a German who had got his naturalisation papers a few weeks ago. We do not want to give any special facilities to that gentleman. I take the view which has been expressed with very great force on the opposite side of the House, that British justice ought to be administered without partiality and without distinguishing a man's nationality at all. If a man is innocent or is to be proved guilty, even if he is our enemy, he is just as much entitled to British justice as if he had been a German a few weeks ago, and become naturalised. Some hon. Members have contended that the definition should be drawn even closer and others that it ought to include the subjects of neutral states for instance, but my contention is that it ought to include every person who puts his foot upon British soil. He is entitled to be tried by a jury. If this War had not taken place he would have that right. Of course, if he is a belligerent he is subject to martial law. Any of our young men who join this New Army in any capacity whatever are outside the benefit of this Bill. They are subject to martial law.
  We do not seek in this Bill to give them or any other belligerent any rights whatever with regard to military or naval offences, except to be tried by the military or naval authorities. That, of course, applies to enemies as well, but when you come to the astonishing set of regulations which arise out of this principal Act and find that as regard to these new offences which have been created, which, of course, are mostly dealt with by magistrates and disposed of in a summary manner, any

  329
  person in England can be tried, and can be summarily convicted without any right of appeal whatever, we ought to be grateful to those Members of the House of Lords who have called our attention to it, and in passing this Amending Bill we might to take care that we do not create any fresh injustices, and do not impose upon a prisoner the loss of his undoubted right of venue, and that we open British justice to every civilian who sets his foot on British soil.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not think any Member of the House, or any person outside on behalf of Members of the House, need stand in a white sheet because the Defence of the Realm Act was passed in its original form and gave the powers which were asked for by the Government at that time, and I do not understand how any Member of the House can now disclaim responsibility for the passing of that Act in the form in which it was passed. In the matter of all emergency legislation of this kind it must be acknowledged that Members of the Opposition have behaved with the greatest fairness and the greatest lack of prejudice, and with a very patriotic spirit. They took full responsibility for passing such measures as the Government deemed necessary, and for extending to the Government such powers as they thought necessary. Of course, the exercise of the powers is another matter. There may be, and no doubt at the proper time there will be, abundant criticism as to the manner in which the powers have in various respects been exercised. When that criticism comes no one will think it is unfair or is necessarily improper. When one listens to some of the criticism which has been passed, chiefly outside this House, with regard to granting to the Government the extensive powers which are contained in the original, one inclines to think that the War must be being conducted in some very remote quarter of the globe.
  Had this War been taking place in South America, or in China, even on the largest possible scale, it is quite certain that this Bill would never have been introduced, and that even if it had been introduced it would not have been passed by this House. But these events, these dangers, are occurring within a few hours' journey of the House in which we sit. The War is not confined to the Continent. The warlike operations are actually being conducted on the island in which we live. Our shores have been bombarded, bombs have been
  330
  dropped inland, and warlike crafts attacking our food-ships have circumnavigated this island. The danger, possibly even greater than we can guess at, known only to the Government itself, was of an urgent and immediate kind, and when people talk of the suspension of our liberties by the passing of the original Act they seem to imagine that the choice was a choice between the civil liberties of the country and martial law. The choice was not between martial law and our civil liberties, but was of a very different and more dreadful kind. It was a choice between martial law and the absolute abrogation of law, such as we see existing in Belgium to-day. It was because out of the dangers which surrounded us at the opening of this War there was a possibility that events might occur which might result in such a state of matters as we see in Belgium that martial law was introduced to the extent to which it was introduced by this Act.
  It must be remembered also that all the guarantees of civil liberties were not suspended by the Defence of the Realm Act. Part of the machinery of civil liberty, and a very important part, was abrogated or suspended, but there are some of the greatest safeguards still existing and still preserved. After all, the Government which exercises the power granted by the Defence of the Realm Act, the Government which exercises those powers, is not an autocratic or oligarchic Government. It is still a Government responsible to this House, and unable to carry on without the continued support of this House. In the second place, those courts-martial, those military authorities, which exercise certain powers under the Defence of the Realm Act are not absolute and autocratic authorities. Our military authorities are under civil control. The authority which Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State, exercises over the Army is not an authority derived from his profession as a soldier. It is an authority derived from his position as a member of the Government responsible to the House. It is a civil authority just as much as the authority which is exercised over the Navy. The Government itself has assured us that the urgency of the situation is no longer as great as it originally was. I am not sure that I should have ventured to make any such statement. As far as an ordinary lay member can see the dangers which surround us are as great as they have been, but the Government has access to information to which we have not access. It

  331
  knows what guarantees and assurances the Navy can give us, and if it can assure us that the powers originally conferred in this Act can be safely limited and diminished the House I am sure, will pass the measure proposed, limiting those powers, with the same willingness with which it originally passed the Defence of the Realm Act.
  While we accept wholeheartedly the principle of this Bill—the principle of giving the Government powers so limited—I think we can properly and justifiably make some criticisms of the machinery whereby the principle is carried out. A number of criticisms have been made from both sides of the House, and some of them seem to me to have considerable cogency. I hope they will be taken into consideration by the Minister responsible, and that when we come to the Committee stage it will be possible for some modifications of the terms of the Bill to be granted. There were two criticisms which seem to me specially cogent. The first was with regard to the concession contained in the Bill giving liberty to be tried by a Civil Court. That was confined only to British subjects, but it was denied to alien enemies, neutrals, and allies. I could not understand why, in accordance with the principle of the Bill, that should be done—why that limitation was introduced. Presumably, any person arrested under this Act will be guilty of an offence. Is it suggested then that an offence of this kind by a British subject is less dangerous and less heinous than if committed by an alien enemy, or by a neutral, or by an ally? I should have thought that an offence of this kind by a British subject was much more heinous and blameworthy. There would be double guilt—first, the guilt of a breach of these regulations, and the further guilt of disloyalty and treachery to the country to which one owes allegiance, and, if any person ought to be visited with the severest penalty, it is the British subject who is guilty of such treachery. To introduce this limitation seems almost like saying that a man who is guilty of burglary should be tried by court-martial, while a man guilty of parricide should be tried by a Civil Court and a jury. I understand the limitation with regard to alien enemies. I do think it would be more difficult to secure a fair trial by jury for an alien enemy, but I do not think the same difficulty would exist with regard to aliens who are either allies or neutrals.
  332
  The second criticism which I thought had much weight was in regard to that part of the Bill which requires that, in order to have the right to be tried by a Civil Court, the accused person must make his claim within four days. I do not understand why that limitation should be introduced at all. If there is no danger at all in having the trial by Civil Court, why have any limitation at all? Why not lay down in every case that trials shall be by Civil Courts? Why give any option to the accused man to adopt the alternative and to be able to exercise the option in four days? In this matter I think the burden of choosing as to whether one shall be tried by court-martial or Civil Court should not be placed upon the individual who is accused, but upon the Government. You could give in the Bill the full right to all accused persons to be tried by the Civil Courts, subject to the right of the Government if any dangerous event occurs, or any eminent danger arises to deal with the matter by Proclamation. I call attention particularly to these two points in the Bill because it seems to me that, in the first place, the limitation to British subjects, and secondly, the obligation to claim the right of trial by a Civil Court within four days are contrary to the main principle of the Bill. The main principle of the Bill is that there is no immediate reason why these offences should be tried by court-martial, and why they should not be tried by the Civil Courts. Some suggestions have been made which I will not discuss at the present moment, but they will probably be discussed on the Committee stage. I do not think they have the same force or cogency as the two I have indicated.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Thursday).

  ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): If the House will allow me, I will say one or two words in explanation of this Bill. It consists of two Clauses and is a very small measure. By

  333
  it, we facilitate transfers in the Army from one unit to another. There is power at present for the Army Council to transfer soldiers from one unit to another three months after enlistment. This Bill gets rid of a limitation imposed by the words "three months," and makes it possible to have transfers during the progress of the War. It is not proposed to effect these transfers in time of peace. Then, the Clause does not affect any man who enlisted before 4th August last year. It gives power to general officers for the reduction of non-commissioned officers—either to a lower rank or to the rank of private. At present, as I dare say the House is aware, there is power in the hands of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief to remove—
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Has he the power to remove to another unit?
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is dealing with the first Clause. I am dealing with the second Clause. The first Clause is merely for transfer from one corps to another corps—transfers from one regiment of Infantry to another regiment of Infantry—or from one regiment of Cavalry to another regiment of Cavalry—transfers in the same branch of the Service. In regard to the power of reduction dealt with in the second Clause, that, as I say, is now a power of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, but inasmuch as it will be inconvenient always to have a reference of such cases to the Army Council, it has been considered desirable to delegate this power to certain officers commanding at home in camp in various parts of the country.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to ask a question in regard to the first Clause. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea whether the option is to be given to the men to transfer? There are many cases in my own knowledge, in the last few months, where men who had enlisted in one battalion desire to transfer to another battalion. There is, at the present time, very great difficulty in getting that transfer. I do not know if this Bill will enable that transfer to be made, or if it will give the Army Council power to transfer them against their wishes from one corps to another, and I do not know whether the men will be better or worse—whether it will be easier for A.B. to transfer from the one in which he enlisted, to another, or easier for the War Office to transfer half a battalion of men to another battalion.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is really both. It is designed to give greater power to the Army Council to transfer men where such transfers seem to them desirable, and I am sure it does not require much imagination to picture such a condition of things. I think it may be fairly said that where a soldier desires a transfer that power is conferred under the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.

  BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): This is an emergency measure, to continue only during the continuance of the War. It is not so much a matter of serious necessity as of expediency to make clear the legal powers of the Board of Trade. In December last the Board of Trade issued a circular inviting all persons interested to consult with them, and they have had no difficulty whatever in persuading ship owners to carry out their wishes. I need not point out how dangerous it would be that ships should be transferred to neutrals in the present state of things. The ship owners have shown themselves very ready indeed to assent to the wishes of the Board of Trade. There is always the possibility of some person raising the question of the legal powers possessed by the Board of Trade, which are not so full as we wish. If we have no legal power to prevent an owner from transferring his ship, this Bill gives power to the Board to refuse to permit the transfer of a British ship unless the Board are satisfied of the expediency of the transfer. I need hardly point out that it gives power that the Board should be satisfied that there is no objectionable transaction. The object of the Bill is to make definite and clear the legal power of the Department to prevent an undesirable transfer.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member representing the Board of Trade who tells us that the object of the measure is to make matters clear. It seems to me that although he admitted the Bill now before the House is an emergency Bill it is really a piece of panic legislation. The first Clause of the Bill says:—
  "A transfer made after the twelfth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifteen, of a British ship registered in the United Kingdom, or a share therein, to a person not qualified to own a British ship, shall not have any effect."
  Down to that point the Clause appears to be fairly clear. If a transfer were made to-day of a British ship registered in Great Britain to somebody who was not qualified to own it it would not have any effect, and, therefore, the Clause amounts to nothing whatever. Down to that point it simply states a self-evident fact. But going on another word or two, it says:—
  "Unless the transfer is approved by the Board of Trade."
  I think that if the intention is to give the Board of Trade power to approve of the transfer of a British ship to somebody who is not entitled at present to have it transferred to him, then the Board of Trade ought to tell us so, and the House of Commons would know that it is sought to pass an Act of Parliament enabling somebody who hitherto has not been able to own a British ship to own one for the first time. I listened carefully to the explanation given by the hon. Member, and certainly it did not convey to my mind that the effect of this Bill, if passed, was going to be to enable a British ship to be transferred to somebody who at present is not capable of owning it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Then it would cease to be a British ship.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Then there is an end to the transaction. But, if I may respectfully call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact, this is the assent to the transfer of a British ship registered in the United Kingdom, and it does not say anything whatever on the lines indicated by the hon. Member. It is perfectly true that that may be the intention, and if that is the intention of this Bill I think that we ought to be informed of it. Then the second Clause makes an exception as regards ships registered in certain places, and we have had no explanation
  336
  as to why British India, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand should be left out. Why British ships or ships belonging to British citizens who may live in parts of the world other than those mentioned here should be treated differently is something of which we have had no explanation. I think that when we are told that the new Bill, which is now being introduced, is intended to operate only during the War, and when it is placed before us and we are trying our best to make out what is its real intention we ought to be very careful, for the sake of a few minutes in this House, to see whether we can really understand what is sought to be done.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I quite agree with the hon. Member that we should be very careful in regard to all legislation of this kind. In reference to his first point, I may say that the Clause simply follows the forms of words already found in the Merchant Shipping Act, and is simply to prevent a British ship from being transferred to any outside owner where it might not be desirable to allow the transfer to take place. The phrase "person entitled to own a British ship" is the wording of the Merchant Shipping Act, and it is desirable to keep the wording of the various Merchant Shipping Acts as far as possible on the same lines. In the cases mentioned in the Schedule, which are excluded from the operation of the Act, they themselves will regulate the shipping. British India, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, will regulate shipping themselves. That is an understood thing. The purpose of the Bill simply is to regulate shipping in the United Kingdom and those ports where there is British control.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (PART II.—AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It has been found, as one of the results of the War, that a certain number of contractors have taken contracts for the

  337
  carrying out of work on the Continent. A number of the men so employed, and a number of the employers employing them, have continued the process of stamping the books in order to keep up the unemployment insurance of those workmen under the Act. We have no power to accept such stamps, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable us to accept such stamps. I think that the House will agree that it would be undesirable to prevent the continuance of insurance in such cases where the employers and the men are willing to do so. As the matter stands, we are unable to accept the stamps. The purpose of the Bill is simply to make it possible for us, during the continuance of the War, and for one year afterwards, to permit the continuance of insurance in respect of these men, purely as a voluntary matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.

  NAVAL MEDICAL COMPASSIONATE FUND BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): I beg to move, "That the Hill be now read a second time."
  This is a purely Departmental measure dealing with a sum of £10,600, the nucleus of a fund established in 1817. Owing to various alterations in particular arrangements of the naval medical officers, that fund is now almost in a moribund condition. We ask that there may be power by an Order in Council to reorganise the fund and to create a number of new trustees, who will probably be three—the Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty, the Medical Director-General, and possibly the Director of Greenwich Hospital. The object is to constitute those gentlemen trustees, to enable them to consult the medical officers concerned in reference to this fund, so that the nucleus, now consisting of £10,600, may be put to better advantage and distributed among the dependants of naval officers who are killed in the War.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What is the urgency about this measure? It may be perfectly good, but why should it be dealt with as an emergency Bill when this fund has been going on since 1817?
  Mr. LAMBERT: The urgency is that the fund has become moribund. We want simply that this fund should be utilised for the benefit of those dependants of the medical officers who have been killed during the War.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: How has it become moribund?
  Mr. LAMBERT: If the hon. and learned. Member desires me to give a longer explanation, I will do so with pleasure The fund was established in 1817 with a compulsory contribution made by medical, officers to supplement the pensions granted to the widows, which at that time only amounted to £40 a year. Things went on until 1861, when Parliament wound up the compulsory portion of the fund but left the voluntary part of it to be applied as a compassionate fund to the dependants of medical officers who should choose to contribute to that fund. Those medical officers have not contributed to it. There is now a sum of £10,600 available, which it is thought may be usefully employed in giving benefit to the dependants of those medical officers who have been killed in the War. We propose to constitute as trustees gentlemen who we hope the hon. Gentleman will think are peculiarly suitable to discharge the duty—the Permanent Secretary of the Admiralty, the Medical Director - General, and possibly the Director of Greenwich Hospital. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that we have no ulterior motive. Our object is solely to administer the fund, the nucleus of which is already in existence, for the benefit of the dependants of those medical officers who are killed in the War.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  IRISH POLICE (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. This is rather an important Bill. I made an arrangement with the President of the Irish Board of Agriculture that there should be some discussion upon it, but there seems to be nobody hero representing the Irish Office.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir H. Verney): Yes, there is.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In that case I will endeavour to repeat my reasons for objecting to this Bill. It is a Bill for giving certain privileges to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police if they enlist in the naval or military forces of the Crown. Of course, I have not the slightest objection to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary receiving the same benefits and being put in the same position as any police officers in the United Kingdom, but this Bill, I think I shall be able to show, does not put the Irish police in the same position as the police in the United Kingdom. Further, I do not think that the Bill is necessary at all; and, still further, I would draw the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that it makes an alteration in the whole finances of the Home Rule Act. Everybody will agree that this is not the period to make an alteration in the Home Rule Act or in the finance or in any other respect. If the hon. Baronet will look at Chapter 34 of the Acts passed last Session he will see that there was an Act then passed dealing with constables in England and Scotland who enlisted in the Forces of the Crown. That applied only to those police who were Reservists, and it said that the police authorities could make up to the police the difference between the pensions or annuities which would accrue, and which would be given in the ordinary way to ordinary soldiers and sailors, and the amount which the police would have got if they had remained in the police.
  If the hon. Baronet will look at Section 5 of those rules he will see that it expressly stipulates the police fund in the case of the City of London. That means the ordinary fund from which the expenses of the City Police are defrayed—that is to say, it means that the ratepayers have to make up the difference. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to chapter 80 he will find that later on last year, I think September, the provisions of that Act were extended so as to permit policemen who were not reservists also to enlist, and if they do so, they continue under the benefits provided by the original Act. But it is said that the police authority may, if they think fit, extend the privileges under this Section to any constable if the police authorities are satisfied, after consultation with the Admiralty or the Army Council,
  340
  that the constable possesses qualifications not possessed by ordinary recruits. Therefore there was the limitation that there must be, first of all, the authority of a superior officer, and then the police authority, after consultation with the Admiralty or Army Council, must be satisfied that the constable has the special requirements.
  A few days later on an Act was passed dealing with the Irish police. Chapter 84 is identical with the first Act passed (chapter 34) with regard to the English police, and said nothing about the expenses; but Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill provides that His Majesty may, by Order in Council, extend to constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary of Police (Ireland) Act, Sub-sections (1) and (2), and Section 1 of the Constabulary and Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, Therefore, what was required to be done was to put the Dublin police, or the Irish Constabulary, on exactly the same terms as to enlistment and pensions, and as to the source from which the money was to be found. All that was necessary was an Order in Council under Sub-section (3) of the Act. Therefore, on the face of it, it would seem, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told me yesterday, that he did not wish to burden the House of Commons with unnecessary legislation, that the hon. Baronet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is burdening the House of Commons with unnecessary legislation. When you turn to the Bill you find that it goes further. In the first place, I submit that the police in England and Ireland should be treated in exactly the same way. The Bill does away with the qualification that a man may only enlist if the Admiralty or the War Office think that he has special qualifications. Under this Bill, any policeman may enlist if he gets the sanction of a superior authority. I do not know why that should be so in Ireland any more than in England, and I think that ought to be altered, and if the hon. Baronet proceeds with the Bill I shall certainly move an Amendment to make an alteration. To come to what is most important—that is, Section 5, Clause 1—
  "Any pensions, allowances, or gratuities granted under or in pursuance of this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament."
  I have shown that, in the case of England, this extra expense is paid by the ratepayers. I want to know why on earth the Irish ratepayers should not be put in

  341
  exactly the same position as the English ratepayers, and, if this is going to be done, why should the Englishman pay what is practically an Irish charge. That point raises the question of an Amendment of the Home Rule Act. I will show the hon. Baronet my foundation for that statement. I have here the Home Rule Act, and, if the hon. Baronet looks at Section 37 of that Act, he will see that it deals with the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Sub-section 5 says that—
  "Any pensions and other allowances and gratuities which may become payable to officers and constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police after the appointed day, or to officers and constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary," etc., "shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but any sum so paid shall be made good by means of deduction from the Transferred Sum under this Act, in accordance with the regulations made by the Treasury."
  What the hon. Baronet is doing at the present moment is to alter the finance of the Home Rule Act, because under this Bill there is nothing whatever said about deductions from the Transferred Sum. That applies to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is paid out of money provided by Parliament, and as these benefits are only given out of moneys provided by Parliament they should be subject to the same provisions and the same restrictions as in the Irish Home Rule Act, and should be subject to deductions from the Transferred Sum. Further, as the Dublin Metropolitan Police are a body in the same position as the police in England—that is to say, partly paid out of sums contributed by the ratepayers and partly out of a Grant-in-Aid, and inasmuch as in England the ratepayers have to make good those sums, so should the Dublin ratepayers do so in Dublin. They should be both made the same. I will endeavour, as shortly as possible, to put the point. It is really rather an important question, because it is our endeavour to make an Amendment of the Home Rule Act in the guise of a small Bill which is supposed to be doing something to encourage recruiting. With all due deference to the hon. Baronet, I regret that there is not a representative of the Irish Office here, as I intimated my intention to raise a discussion on this point, and I think that the reply ought to have been made by a representative of
  342
  the Irish Office. Certainly on the Committee stage I shall move Amendments which I hope the Government will accept. I shall raise no objection to the Second Reading. When the Financial Resolution was before the House I asked the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture (Ireland) if he would secure me a proper discussion on the Second Reading, and he gave me the undertaking that he would. I have made my speech, but the right hon. Gentleman is not here to listen to it, and, if we are to have a discussion, there is no representative of the Department concerned in the House.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I think an apology is due to the House for the fact that there is no representative of the Irish Office here. My right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture has been obliged to go to Ireland, though he had fully intended to be here, and the House knows the reason why the Chief Secretary for Ireland is unable to be present. I spent four happy years in the Irish Office, the last four, and my right hon. Friends thought that I might be allowed to put forward the position in regard to this Bill on behalf of the Irish Office. I shall send a copy of the hon. Baronet's speech to both of them, and I should be very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he would not object to giving the Second Reading of the Bill, and then the points he has raised can be brought up in Committee. With the permission of the House I will briefly point out one or two things to the hon. Baronet. He gave three reasons against the Bill—that it made a change in the Home Rule Act, that it did not treat the English police and the Irish police in the same way, and, most formidable, that the Bill is not necessary at all. In these times, when party controversy is dead, I am not quite sure whether I should be in order in discussing anything so controversial as the Home Rule Act, but I venture to say this is a temporary War Emergency Bill, a Bill which is urgently required for a particular class of police officer, and I hope that any discussion of the Home Rule Act which arises in Committee may not be of a controversial kind. The hon. Baronet said that the conditions for the Irish police are not the same as for the English police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), and the hon. Baronet also, well know that the English police are not the same as the Irish police. For instance,

  343
  the Royal Irish Constabulary are not supported out of the rates. The hon. Baronet thinks these police forces are the same; as a matter of fact, they are not the same. Both the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary are, in a sense, which in no way applies to the English police, a military force. The Irish Constabulary has what the English Constabulary has not, a military training in a very different sense from which it could be said of the English police.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My point is this: That if a constable who has not been in the Army or Navy before wishes to enlist, before he can do so the War Office or the Admiralty have to be consulted, and it has to be shown that the man has special qualifications. That is a condition which is to apply in the case of the Irish Constabulary. If they have got all those special qualifications, what is the object of putting them in?
  Sir H. VERNEY: That is a point I am trying to make. The Irish police have qualifications which the English police have not.
  Mr. DENNISS: Surely it has been held in those cases in England that they have sufficient qualifications.
  Sir H. VERNEY: Perhaps the hon. Member is not familiar with the Royal Irish Constabulary, whose experience and lot are not the same as in the case of the English police. If I may I will deal with a most important point raised by the hon. Baronet, that we are burdening the House with legislation which is quite unnecessary. The Bill provides something which we think it is right they should have, namely, a separation allowance for the wives of police officers who volunteer, and to give them pensions in case of death or disablement. It is a very small matter concerning sixteen officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary and 200 men who volunteered for service, and ninety-eight Reservists, and twelve of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The hon. Baronet pointed out, I think in Chapter 84, that it is provided that—
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council extend certain provisions to the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police who belong to the Army Reserve and shall extend to constables of those police forces who belong to any Royal Naval Reserve," etc.
  344
  That only applies to Reservists, but this Bill applies not only to the case of Reservists but also to the case of volunteers, and no provision is made in any of the Police Acts hitherto passed with regard to volunteers. It will be quite possible when this Bill is introduced to deal also with volunteers, and therefore to put them on the same footing as the Reservists. Subsection (1) of Clause 1, makes provision that the same procedure will be followed both as regards Volunteers and as regards Reservists. If this Bill is not passed no provision can be made by Order in Council, or in any other way whatever, for the sixteen officers and the 200 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have volunteered. For this reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the Second Reading.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Baronet is wrong about Section 84. It applies not only to Reservists but to people, who enlist also, and Section 3 of Chapter 84 says, that the same provisions which are in Chapter 80 which apply to the English police may be applied to people who enlist voluntarily, by Order in Council.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I disagree with the hon. Baronet. I have gone into the business with extreme care, and I find that if this Bill is not carried, the few Volunteers who have enlisted will not be entitled to a pension, or separation allowance, which it is desired that they should have. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and allow it to go into Committee.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am sure that on both sides we regret the absence of the Chief Secretary for reasons with which we are all familiar. We deplore those reasons and we quite understand that for the present we cannot expect him to be here. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) has mentioned he spent with great advantage very useful and very happy years in the Irish Office, but I think he ought to have got up his case better than he has. He lectured my hon. Friend the Member for the City about the difference between the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the English police. There is, of course, a difference in the training and in the work of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police from that of the English police, but still they are police in every sense of the word. They are

  345
  not a military force and they cannot be used for military purposes. They are police pure and simple, although they somewhat differ from the English police. There is no difference between us as to the necessity for an alteration in the law if, as the hon. Baronet tells us, the Order in Council deals only with Reservists and not with recruits. What my hon. Friend the Member for the City pointed out and what the hon. Baronet opposite did not attempt to answer this, that in this Bill you are going a great deal further than the hon. Baronet himself indicated and you are actually proposing to make a change in the incidence of the cost by what you are doing. When you make provision for the London police or the provincial police in this country you leave the incidence of the charge arising out of that to be borne, as the charge is borne now, partly by the Exchequer and partly by the rates. In regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary the whole charge is borne, as we know, by the Imperial Exchequer, excepting when you exceed the quota.
  What you do is this: You divide up the Royal Irish Constabulary amongst each police area, whether it be a county or other district, and you allot to that area so many Royal Irish Constabulary. That is familiar to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Dougherty), whom I am glad to have the opportunity of welcoming to the House of Commons and who is aware of these things, because he served in the Irish Government for so many years. If that number of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that is the quota, is exceeded, what happens? The locality has to pay the cost of those extra police being sent down, and it no longer comes out of the Imperial Exchequer. Here you are doing something analagous to that. You are taking them for a special purpose, and that charge in regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary ought to be borne in exactly the same way as those charges are borne now, and as similar charges are borne in the ease of the English police, whether Metropolitan or Provincial. You are altering this system by making the charge one to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. You are not only making that change which is in itself an injustice in this Bill, but you are actually altering the financial part of the Home Rule Act by what you are doing. The hon. Baronet told us that this is a temporary emergency Bill. Is there a word in this Bill to say that it is a tem-
  346
  porary Bill? It is not limited in the period of its application, or by any particular period of time. If this Bill goes through it is just as much an Act of Parliament as any other on the Statute Book. Can the hon. Baronet show me any words in the Bill to make it a temporary measure?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I was under the impression that this Bill applied only as a temporary emergency measure. I always read the Bill as being in pursuance of the Royal Proclamation which I understood applied to the period of the War.
  Mr. LONG: The hon. Baronet in suggesting that this is a temporary measure is quite mistaken. It is most permanent in its character. This Bill enables you to do what you must do for those who join the Colours. Nobody has objected to that, and we all agree that you should provide, not only for those men, but also for their wives and dependants. You propose to do that in this Bill, and how can that be described as a temporary measure. It means that that provision will go on so long as those women and children are in need of it. Therefore there is nothing temporary in it. All that my hon. Friend asks is that you should treat the police in Ireland, whether the Royal Irish Constabulary, or the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in exactly the same way, and that you should as generously and as freely recognise their public spirited patriotism as in the case of the English police, and that when it comes to the incidence of the charge that you should preserve the same relation which it bears in England as between the rates and the Exchequer contribution.
  Above all, I must impress on the Government that you must not do anything in this Bill, even if it is per incuriam, which will alter the actual incidence of the financial part of the Home Rule Act as between England and Ireland, as between the United Kingdom and Ireland, when Home Rule becomes an accomplished fact, as you intimate you intend it shall. I must ask the hon. Baronet to undertake that this Bill shall not be taken in Committee till the Government has had the opportunity of considering whether a greater change should not be made in it, even than any he has himself indicated, and whether it is not absolutely necessary that steps should be taken for the insertion of Amendments, and I submit Amendments should come from the Government.

  347
  Those Amendments should make it perfectly clear that whatever be the effect of this Bill it must not either directly or indirectly alter in any way the conditions which are already laid down in the Home Rule Act, and which are the result of a bargain of sorts between England on the one hand and Ireland on the other, and of a very complicated arrangement which was discussed here over and over again, and upon which there never was any agreement, but upon which we entirely differed. You came to a certain decision and Ireland accepted certain obligations. If my hon. Friend is right you are departing from those conditions by the proposal you are making here, and you have no right whatever in a Bill of this kind and character, represented just now by the hon. Baronet as of a temporary nature, to make a change in a new Act of Parliament, to the conditions and provisions of which we must faithfully adhere. Therefore I hope the hon. Baronet will undertake that before the Committee stage sufficient time will be allowed to elapse to enable him to make the necessary representations to the Irish Government and to satisfy us that changes will be made which we think are essential, since this Bill goes very much further than we think it ought to do.
  Sir H. VERNEY: Speaking by leave of the House, may I say I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out those facts? I cannot say they were entirely new to me. This Bill has only one object, which I am sure commends itself to the whole House, and that is that, I think, about 326 people should be given separation allowances and pensions, if necessary. That is the object and the sole object of the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Why, may I ask, is Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 put in the Bill? It provides that any pensions, moneys or gratuities granted in pursuance of this Bill shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. Why is that put into an emergency Bill, and why should the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police be paid for out of English funds? It is this Section put into a Bill of this kind which is really the operative part of the Bill. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney) has not given any explanation of it in his two speeches. What possible grounds is there for putting in that Sub-section? It is the presence of that Sub-section in the Bill which I am sure made my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) deal
  348
  with the case more than anything else. He had, of course, the suspicion that this Clause has been slipped into the Bill because it would transfer a sum of money out of the English Exchequer to the saving of the Dublin rates. That suspicion is very strongly confirmed by the fact that the hon. Baronet has not replied to that point. There is absolutely no necessity at all for this Bill except for that very purpose. There is the fullest power to do everything else provided in the Bill except to transfer the payment to England. No one objects more to doing things by Order in Council than I do, but as a matter of fact there was power taken last autumn to do everything sought for in this Bill except the transfer of the payment. Chapter 84, Sub-section (3) of Section 1 provides:—
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council extend to constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police all or any of the provisions of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, or the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, with such adaptations and modifications as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient."
  The first portion of that Sub-section applies only to Reservists, but power is taken to apply the provisions of the other two Acts mentioned.
  Sir H. VERNEY: It does not apply to officers.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Chapter 80 provides as follows:—
  "A police authority may, if they think fit, by order extend the privileges conferred by this Section to any constable who for the purposes of the present War enters or enlists, or has entered or enlisted, in any of His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces, etc."
  Therefore, it applies to people who enlist voluntarily as well as to Reservists, and I submit the Bill is unnecessary. What I object to is Sub-section (5), which transfers and puts certain burdens on the British taxpayer. I think somebody ought to explain how that Clause happens to be put in there.
  Sir H. VERNEY: I desire to deal with the two points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The first point is as to whether the Bill is required. I can only repeat what I said just now, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will

  349
  see on examination that Chapter 80 does not apply to officers. The Bill we have introduced deals with the case of certain officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. There is no provision possible for those officers otherwise, and, therefore, I think I have established the fact that the Bill is necessary. The other provision applies to such constables as are ex-non-commissioned officers, and, therefore, again I submit that the Bill is absolutely necessary. Even if the hon. and learned Gentleman will confine himself to the case of the officers, he will find that they are not otherwise provided for. With regard to Sub-section (5), while I speak very reluctantly in the presence of so many experts, I thought, and I still think, that pensions, gratuities, and allowances, whether in the Royal Irish Constabulary or in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, are now, and always have been, paid out of the Votes, and have not come from the rates. The simple suggestion is that, as in the past they have been provided by Parliament, so they shall be in the future. There is no desire to make any change. I think I am right in saying that that has always been so, and that is the reason this Subsection has been put in.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I desire to raise a point of Order in reference to this matter. I gather from the hon. Baronet's explanation that this Bill proposes to create certain pensions, allowances, and gratuities which are not in existence at the present moment, and by Sub-section (5) it is proposed to impose them upon moneys provided by Parliament. Is it correct to bring in a Bill imposing financial responsibilities upon this House and the taxpayer without first having a Financial Resolution in Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There has been a Financial Resolution.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather sorry that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has raised this discussion at all, and I am still sorrier for some of the language that has been used. I do not think the Government is entitled to any sympathy on the ground that its case has been in the hands of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Verney), because I do not think I ever beard a case stated more plainly, more conclusively, and in a better temper. When I heard this Bill first mentioned I assumed that it would be passed without a word of comment from any part of the House, because its purpose would appeal to every
  350
  man to whatever party he belonged. As I understand, under the existing law the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary who have the courage and patriotism to enlist, for the front and to take their share of the risks and sufferings of the War might, be deprived of the pensions and their dependants of the allowances given to other soldiers. Is there a single Member present who thinks the police constable or officer who enlists for the front should not have the same safeguards for his wife and children, and for himself if incapacitated, as any other soldier? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That being so, I should have thought the Bill would have been safe from what I must call niggling and captious criticism, and, with all deference to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), from extremely inaccurate criticism. The hon. and learned Gentleman, having first played "devil" to the hon. Baronet (Sir F Banbury), then on his own account came up with the statement that the Bill Was unnecessary because its purposes could be carried out under existing legislation. I never heard of the Act to which he referred until the hon. and learned Member read the Clause, and I saw at once how conclusive was the case of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Verney), because there is not a word in that Act about anybody but constables, whereas this Bill deals with officers. It is a poor return for the splendid services of the Irish constabulary in the past that a Debate of this kind should be marked by captious criticism.
  With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long). I was rather surprised by one remark, coming from a man of his long experience in Irish affairs. He established a comparison between a body of Irish constabulary sent to a particular district and members of the constabulary sent to the front. When they are sent to a particular district in Ireland, and that district has to pay the additional expense, they are sent there because of disorder, and the sum that the locality has to pay is in the nature of a fine for the disorder. Can anybody other than the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any analogy between such a case and the case of constables and officers who are ready to suffer and die for their country at the front? As to Sub-section (5) it makes no change. We all know that the constabulary in Ireland have been paid out of

  351
  Imperial funds, and we know the reasons for that. It is not right that I should go into those reasons now, beyond saying that, the constabulary having been entirely free from local control, the locality has not been asked to pay for them. I will not allude to the Home Rule Act, except to say that I regard this Bill as an emergency measure called forth by the conditions of the War, and ceasing with the conditions of the War, and, therefore, having no relevance whatever to Acts of Parliament or other matters of keen controversy.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I say a word as an ordinary Member of the House upon the criticism that has been passed in reference to the hon. Baronet being in charge of this Bill? We all agree as to the hon. Baronet's competence to discharge this or a much more onerous task. But that is not the point. We are in this position at the present time: we cannot divide the House and we cannot have a fight about a Bill. We do not wish to; but we wish to be able to make representations to the Government as to particular provisions, and for that purpose we must have present not merely a competent Minister, but a responsible Minister, who is able to make changes to meet the views we put forward. That is why it is particularly important under these conditions that the really responsible Minister should be present.
  Sir H. VERNEY: It is the Chief Secretary in this case.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There are special reasons for the absence of the Chief Secretary on this occasion. But if he cannot be here the Vice-President should be. There is no particular urgency about the Bill; it might have been postponed for a day or two.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Vice-President was in charge of the Resolution.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Nobody disputes the excellence of the object of the Bill. We are all in favour of it. We are most anxious that these men should have the fullest advantages to which they were entitled. That is not the point. Two points have been raised. One is that the Bill is unnecessary, because its purpose is already provided for by previous legislation. That may or may not be accurate; I do not know. The other point has not been dealt with, namely, that the pensions
  352
  allotted to dependants of the Dublin Metropolitan Police ought not to come out of Imperial Funds, but ought to come partly, at any rate, out of local funds. I do not know whether that is so, as I am not an expert in Irish government. But the point has been made, and I think it is absurd to say that the objections are niggling or unimportant. I am bound to say that we cannot always trust the descriptions which the Government give of their emergency legislation. That line of thought, however, would lead to a very controversial matter, and I will not pursue it. But our experience is very recent in that matter, and we are bound to look very closely at everything the Government do, and I for one intend to do so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next (1st March).
  The remaining Orders of the Day were read and postponed.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Official Report of Debates, and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public service generally:
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Mr. Fletcher, Major Guest, Mr. Ingleby, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Partington, Captain William Redmond, Sir George Toulmin, and Mr. Wheler.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That three be the Quorum.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That, this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: I gave notice at the end of Questions of my intention to raise what seems to me a question of very considerable importance to many of our constituents. The House will remember that a

  353
  Select Committee was appointed to deal with the question of separation allowances and pensions to dependants of soldiers killed in the War. That Committee has issued an Interim Report, fixing the new separation allowances, and suggesting new pension arrangements. Those separation allowances come into effect on Monday next, and as there is only to-night and to-morrow available for discussion of this important matter, it seems to me that any criticism which is to be offered must be made now, if at all. I suggest that we are approving a scheme bristling in many respects with anomalies and hardships, none of which we have had an opportunity of discussing. To show the kind of thing that I have in mind, I would remind the House that the dependant of a soldier killed in the month of September has been drawing absolutely nothing up to the present date, whereas the dependant of a soldier who was killed at the beginning of October has been in receipt of separation allowance which was to be continued, as we were told, for twenty-six weeks.
  I remind the House of this fact, that those twenty-six weeks will be up almost immediately; they will certainly be up at the end of March, and the Select Committee which we have erected has not yet considered the new authority that will require to be set up to pay those particular pensions, and—more important than paying the pensions—to determine the amount which is to be paid to the dependants of our soldiers. That seems to me a point in which the House ought to be interested, and I want to suggest in connection with these allowances that there are certain other points on which we ought to have more information than we have at the moment. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is present. He will remember that he has already, from the Front Bench, promised that the wives of soldiers who were married subsequently to 14th August—after the outbreak of War—are not only to receive separation allowances on and from 1st March, but are to receive a certain amount of arrears from a date which is to be fixed. The House will bear in mind exactly what has happened. You have women who married after the outbreak of the War. Their husbands went to the front in many cases, and are there. They have not been in receipt of any separation allowance, and they will not be in receipt of any until 1st March. I should like to know from the
  354
  Financial Secretary what is the date the Government intend to fix as the date from which a wife in that position will be paid arrears, and also whether he can tell us the amount of the arrears that they will be paid. Will they be paid arrears for the whole time or for a part of the time, and in the payment of those arrears will they receive the arrears in a lump sum or will they be given on the principle of instalments?
  Dealing with the question of separation allowances alone—because I think we ought to have, or take, another opportunity of dealing with pensions—which, at any rate, are remote some four weeks yet—I want to draw the attention of the House to what strikes me as a fact worth consideration. Hon. Members will remember that we have had two Reports, two White Papers—the first, Command Paper No. 7662, in which separation allowances were outlined which did not satisfy the House of Commons; then the Interim Report of the Select Committee set up to deal with the question both of allowances and pensions. In that Report we have very considerably increased separation allowances. Those allowances are paid on a flat rate. I think if one examines the matter from the point of view of a flate rate it will be found that extraordinary results emerge. The wife and children are divided by the Select Committee into three geographical groups. You have the wife and family who reside in London. You have the wife and family who reside in our large provincial towns. You have the wife and family who reside in our country districts. In each of these cases the allowance which is given is given on a flat rate, and, obviously, works out at the same figure. But I want to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to this result. Take the average, the typical, case of a soldier who leaves a wife and three children, having joined the New Army. According to the Select Committee that wife and family is, or will be, in receipt of 23s. That will be paid whether they live in London, the provinces, or in a country district; the only difference being that the wife and family in London will be in receipt of an extra 3s. 6d., which is supposed to cover rent.
  I take it that the purpose of these allowances is to place the wife and family of the soldier, to use the words of the Financial Secretary himself—in an Instruction which has been sent to the pensions' officers—on approximately the same basis of comfort as they were in before the man

  355
  joined the Army. I do not want to elaborate this point too much, but I want to remind the House that we have a basis of figures available from the Board of Trade, and from men who have studied this problem in the country, who are known authorities, and who have fixed what is known in discussion as the Subsistence Basis of Livelihood. I need only remind the House that on that basis the the cost of maintaining an adult is 5s. per week, the cost of maintaining a child is 3s.; the cost of rent in London is 5s. 6d., in the provinces 4s., and in the country districts 2s. The cost of fuel and lighting is 1s. 6d.,.the cost of clothing 1s., and the cost of household sundries 1s. per week.
  These figures the House will recognise err on the side of being just on the living margin. One would not defend them except in making the point that they are subsistence figures. If you work out on the subsistence figures which I have given, and which are admitted in all circles, and certainly on both sides of this House, it will cost a wife and family in London to live alone—merely to subsist—23s. per week. In the provinces it will cost 21s. 6d., and in the country districts 10s. 6d. Let me repeat the fact that the London family receives 26s. 6d., the provincial family and the family in the country 23s. You thus have this amazing result, that a woman in the country district is going to have as much money to maintain herself and her family as the woman in the London area, and mil have the same amount of margin. The woman and family in London will have sixpence a day margin; the woman and family in the country will have sixpence a day margin; but the woman and family who will be most hardly hit of all will be the wife of the soldier who has gone from the provincial town.
  Every man who is listening to me in this House represents one of these constituencies, because they contain the greater part of the population of the country. I am trying to point out the incidence of these separation allowances, which are to come into force on Monday, and which we have been denied the opportunity to discuss in this House, and which have been considered by a Committee of the House—composed of men every one of whom is too busy to attend to the work—at the present moment you cannot get them together quick enough to decide certain questions that arise. It is a vital
  356
  point for those of us who represent the greater part of the population. I am perfectly certain that it will be futile to make an appeal to the Government to give more money. I do not think that those who represent it on the Front Bench at the moment would care to communicate that request to the powers that preside over them. I want, however, to suggest a fair compromise: Remember the figures which I have given. A woman in London gets 26s. 6d., one in the provinces 23s., and the one in the country 23s.—that is to say, for the three families the Government allowances amount to 72s. 6d. On the subsistence basis, to keep all three of them you require to spend 64s. on the figures which I gave. That leaves a balance of 8s. 6d. for the three families. Instead of giving the London family 3s. 6d. extra, I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that he should divide the margin in a different way.
  I am going to suggest that the London family should get 4s.; the provincial family, 3s.; and the country family, 1s. 6d. That would mean that instead of 26s. 6d. for London, the figure would be 27s.; instead of 23s. for the provinces, it would be 24s. 6d.; and for the country is would be still one guinea. Surely a scheme of separation allowances ought not to permit what does exist under the scheme which we have before the House now. It is actually paying the wives and families of our agricultural labourers and people for the men to join the Army. The wife and family receive more than they do when the husband is working on the spot. Incidentally, may I remind the Financial Secretary that on the pension side of this scheme it will absolutely pay every agricultural labourer's wife in the country, from a money point of view, to have her husband killed at the front. She will have a bigger allowance for the rest of her life than if her husband were working for her.
  I think these are points of criticism which are worth consideration. I do not enlarge on the scope of the separation allowances, yet I think someone ought to put the point that here you have a financial scheme involving, I do not know how much per week, which was remitted to a Select Committee of this House, and which comes into operation on Monday, which we have had no opportunity of discussing, and which when we do discuss on the Adjournment—as we are discussing now—nobody of any official importance except the Financial

  357
  Secretary is present. Yet it is the most vital question at the present moment. It is infinitely more vital than any question we have been discussing this afternoon. It means the maintenance of the women and children of the men who have gone to the front. I do not know what can be done between now and Monday, but I do suggest to the Financial Secretary to the War Office that he certainly ought to put the wife and family of the soldier in the provincial towns—that is the big industrial centres in the country—in as good a position as the women in the country. I shall be glad if he can see his way clear to do it.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): The hon. Member has made a most interesting speech, to which I shall do my best to reply. I think, however, he will admit that during the latter part of it he was not so much addressing me as the Select Committee, which is not here.
  Mr. HOGGE: How else can I get at them?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot claim to reflect the mind of the Select Committee as to anything that lies in the future, but I hope before I sit down that I shall be able to give my hon. Friend some information with regard to matters already settled. The hon. Member made a very ingenious attack upon the principles of flat-rate, and pointed out that it was bound to lead to inequality as between London and the provinces and the country districts. If I were to criticise his remarks on that point, I should do so very briefly, and only in one or two particulars. My hon. Friend referred to the formula as to the restoration of the home of the dependants to approximately the same degree of comfort as that before the soldier left. That formula is applied by the Select Committee to dependants, only because they had already adopted the principle of a fixed sum and flat-rate for wives. My hon. Friend avoided what might have been a rather fruitful source of criticism by practically admitting he asked for no money.
  Mr. HOGGE: It was no use.
  Mr. BAKER: And suggested instead that the existing fund should be redistributed, so that it might, in his opinion, fall more fairly than it does at present. On that, I would point out that, if he is going to deal merely with the existing fund in order to carry out his scheme, he will be
  358
  taking money away from somebody who is enjoying it at present in order to give it to somebody who does not enjoy it. I think that those who lose the money might very possibly claim that they were the victims of a breach of faith on the part of the Government if any reduction were made in the interest of any other class.
  Mr. HOGGE: They are not entitled to it until 1st March, and I am giving the hon. Member, on 24th February, time to repent.
  Mr. BAKER: That brings me to what is, perhaps, the strongest ground of criticism of the hon. Member's suggestion, and it is that the whole of this question has, as I know, been very fully considered by the Select Committee. They have considered whether you should take into account variations of rent and variations in cost of living in different parts of the country, and, after consideration, they have decided that, on the whole, we had adopted the best plan. I would invite my hon. Friend to look at a paragraph in the Report, which seldom receives the attention it deserves, in which they say that any extra degree of necessity, or cases where hardship may be thought to exist, should be dealt with by appropriate machinery outside that provided by the flat rate. They have not attempted to lay down a rate that removes all possible hardships, but they have pointed to another, and in their opinion a better, way by which inequalities should be redressed. I turn to the earlier part of the speech of my hon. Friend, in which he asks me various questions with regard to arrears. He asked me what would happen with regard to wives who had married after the enlistment of their husbands, who, under the earlier definition, it will be remembered, were excluded from allowance, but are now admitted under the abolition of the restriction recommended by the Select Committee. I am expressing the intentions of the Select Commitee in saying that, whereas the new rates will begin from 1st March, the new classes are to receive arrears as from 1st February. That follows what is a very general practice in matters of this kind, of dating from the date on which the recommendation is made. As to whether the arrears are to be paid by instalments or lump sum, I cannot give a definite answer; but, as the amount will not be very considerable, I should think the usual practice of payment by way of lump sum should be followed.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the arrears be extended to the dependants of soldiers married after enlistment?
  Mr. BAKER: My hon. Friend is quite right to ask, and I was rather surprised that he omitted that class from his speech. That, of course, is another class which has now been admitted to allowance, and they likewise will receive from 1st February. I think I have answered the specific points. I regret I cannot give my hon. Friend complete satisfaction, because he is largely dealing with a settled matter, inasmuch as it is the intention of the Government, already partially carried out, to adopt without alteration the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  Mr. CURRIE: I listened with interest to the Financial Secretary's statement, and there is only one question that I would like him to answer, if he will be good enough to do so. I understood from the Under-Secretary for War the other day that before the end of this month an announcement would be made as to the bringing into operation of the machinery whereby an appeal could be taken where a difference of opinion existed between pension officers and pension committees, and I should be still glad to have from him a statement as to whether that machinery is ready, and just on the point of being brought into operation? For the rest, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the fact that he is addressing a House consisting of three Labour Members, two Liberals, and two Unionists, can fairly be taken as an indication that any part of the House regards the matter of this pension allowance as of anything but of great importance.
  Mr. BAKER: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member as to the machinery of appeal, I said it would
  360
  be ready by 1st March and it will be. I am not able to describe it to him at this moment, but I will renew the assurance gave him with still greater confidence.
  Mr. BARNES: Possibly I should be in order, but it would be unbecoming of me, to take part in the matter of controversy I raised by my hon. Friend, but probably I should be doing a good turn to everybody if I replied to the hon. Gentleman opposite. It so happens that the Committee has now finished so far as the appeal machinery is concerned, and we have decided that a right of appeal should be given, that the applicant should get a form at the Post Office, that that form when made up should be sent to a paymaster, the paymaster should himself settle if it is on a matter of regulation, and should send it back to the pension committee if a matter of amount, and if the pension committee and the pension officer agree, then that settles the matter as to the amount. I think I am justified in making this statement, because the Committee want the fullest possible publicity given to the matter. It has been decided to ask the Postmaster-General to exhibit notices in the post offices. It has also been agreed to ask voluntary associations to act so far as it is necessary for; them on behalf of the applicants, and generally speaking, I know that the Committee want the greatest possible publicity to be given to the fact that those cases that have been enumerated for some weeks can now be disposed of. That is my only justification for rising to make this statement in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes before Eight, of the clock.

WAR.
  GERMAN COLONIES.
  GERMAN COLONIES.
  WAR SIGNAL STATIONS (WIVES).
  WAR SIGNAL STATIONS (WIVES).
  COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE RAVITAILLEMENT.
  COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE RAVITAILLEMENT.
  ADMIRALTY COASTING TRADE (PROFITS).
  ADMIRALTY COASTING TRADE (PROFITS).
  CEREALS, IMPORTED AND EXPORTED (AUSTRIA-HUNGARY).
  CEREALS, IMPORTED AND EXPORTED (AUSTRIA-HUNGARY).
  CARE OF CHILDREN.
  CARE OF CHILDREN.
  CARRIAGE BUILDERS.
  CARRIAGE BUILDERS.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  ARMY BOOTS.
  ARMY BOOTS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
  PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
  Royal Dockyards (Draftsmen).
  Royal Dockyards (Draftsmen).
  Welsh Church Act.
  Welsh Church Act.
Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that he had received from the Senior Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice, a certificate under the Seal of the said Court, stating that the Right Honourable Lawrence William Palk, Baron Haldon, late of 15, Lowndes Square, in the County of London, being a Peer of the Realm, was adjudicated bankrupt on the 11th of February 1903: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

DENNY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
STALYBRIDGE, HYDE, MOSSLEY AND DUKINFIELD TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GERMANS HOLDING PILOTAGE CERTIFICATES.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government how many certificates for pilotage for the River Thames or for any part of the United Kingdom were held by German or Austrian subjects, or by naturalised Germans or Austrians, when the war broke out.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, at the outbreak of war five pilotage certificates for the London district and three for the Humber (except in and out of Grimsby) were held by German subjects, all being masters in the employment of the Argo Steamship Company, of Bremen. No pilotage certificate for any other port in the United Kingdom was held by a German or Austrian subject. So far as the Board of Trade have been able to ascertain, no pilotage certificate was held by a naturalised German or Austrian, but the pilotage authorities are not in all cases in possession of information with regard to the antecedents of the holders of certificates. The total number of pilotage certificates held by masters and mates in the United Kingdom at the date mentioned was about 2,500.

DETAINED ENEMY VESSELS.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord opposite whether His Majesty's Government have considered the case of the seventy-three enemy vessels, with a gross tonnage of 93,354 tons, which Mr. Churchill stated on February 10 in the House of Commons are now detained in the ports of the United Kingdom; whether this number and tonnage represent all the enemy
556
vessels that are now so detained; how long those vessels have been thus detained; whether he can say why His Majesty's Government have not instructed Mr. Attorney-General to apply to the Prize Court for a condemnation of these vessels; and whether there is any reason why, in default of such an application by the Attorney-General to the Prize Court for condemnation of any enemy vessel, the captors of such vessel may not themselves apply for its condemnation.
LORD ISLINGTON: Including a number of small vessels, the total number of ships belonging to enemy subjects detained in the United Kingdom is eighty-three, with a total gross tonnage of 100,448 tons. All these vessels were seized in ports in the United Kingdom at the outbreak of war with the countries to which they respectively belong, and have since been detained. The Attorney-General has applied to the Prize Court for adjudication in each case, and the order of the Court was that the vessel should be detained until further orders. The cases have thus been dealt with, and there is no reason to reopen them. The detention of the ships rather than their condemnation is in accordance with the Sixth Hague Convention, 1907, ratified by His Majesty's Government in 1909. The judgments of the Prize Courts have been so framed, however, that in the event of reciprocal treatment not being obtained for British ships which were seized in enemy ports on the declaration of war, the Crown will be at liberty to apply to the Court for condemnation of the ships. The Crown, acting through the officers of Customs and Excise, is the captor of these ships.

PRIZE MONEY.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true that they have set up a Prize Claims Committee to consider of a distribution to individuals, whose claims have been rejected by the Prize Court, of portions of Prize Money; and if so, whether he can inform the House what are its qualifications, and what cases in respect of what vessels and of what persons are now under consideration by that Committee; and whether it is intended that while all Prize Money is withheld from the officers and men of the Navy, part of it shall be distributed to persons selected by the Prize Court Committee.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Marquess who leads the House has asked

557
me to defer this Question, for he is not able to be here to-day, nor would he find it, I understand, convenient to answer the Question yet. I also understand from the message I received that he will be good enough to let me know as soon as he is in a position to answer it. I hope that there will not be great delay, because the question involved is one of considerable importance.

ADMIRALTY COURTS-MARTIAL.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE*THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to move to resolve—
That this House is of opinion that the established custom of the Navy by which a Court-Martial is held to investigate the loss of any of His Majesty's ships is founded on the best interests both of the Navy and of the public, and that it is expedient that it should be maintained.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject of my Motion is one, I venture to think, of great importance, and your Lordships must bear with me if in the course of my speech I read a certain number of quotations. But before proceeding to my argument I wish to refer to some remarks which the First Lord of the Admiralty made on this subject in the House of Commons a few days ago. He pleaded that Parliament and the country should repose confidence in the Board of Admiralty. I have said before, and I wish to repeat to-day, that we have confidence in the Board of Admiralty and wish to support that Board to the best of our ability The Board of Admiralty contains some very distinguished men. I suppose no member of your Lordships' House has had a better opportunity than I have of gauging to the full the great ability of Lord Fisher, and I wish to say without any reservation that we are conscious of the very special and immense responsibility which rests on the First Sea Lord in time of war, and desire to give him and the whole of the rest of the Board of Admiralty all the help we can in the fulfilment of that great responsibility, for which his most singular gifts so admirably fit him in a time of national crisis.
But, my Lords, if we have misgivings, they have been entirely caused by the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
558
If he [Mr. Churchill] had been content, if he was now content, to fill that great, part which is his own as a member of the Board of Admiralty—as Lord Goschenput it, primes inter pares—he would have far less criticism than he has to meet. But it is because he has so often separated himself from the Board of Admiralty, because he has so often made pronouncements in which his own personality alone appeared and in which the Board of Admiralty was never mentioned, and because we know he has made weird excursions of his own to Belgium in semi-naval uniform that we feel in doubt sometimes whether he is speaking as Mr. Churchill or as First Lord of the Admiralty. If we could be reassured when he speaks and acts that he is only speaking and acting as part of that, great body, then he may be assured of our constant confidence. We do not pretend to have the same confidence in his private individual judgment as we have in the collective judgment of the Board of Admiralty.
When the noble Marquess who leads the House was referring to this question of naval Courts-Martial, I think in the beginning of January, he said that there was no statutory obligation to hold a Court-Martial in the case of the loss of a ship; that it was more a custom than a legal obligation. He was perfectly correct. But the best continent upon that which I have seen was written to me by a distinguished Admiral. This is what he wrote—
"The British Navy is cry much like the British Constitution. Many of its most important customs are unwritten."
There is a very wide field for research into this matter, wide in its bulk though not wide in the multitude of authorities. As your Lordships know, the historian of the Navy was the late Sir William Laird Clowes. His work extends, I think, into seven bulky volumes, and he is the only man, I suppose, who has read through the records of all the naval Courts-Martial. Therefore there is no authority extant, either in the Admiralty or outside, greater than that of Sir W. Laird Clowes on this question of the custom of the Navy in the matter of Courts-Martial.
Let me state to you the effect of Sir W. Laird Clowes's views on this matter. I do not think any one could study his works

559
without coming to the conclusion that the Admiralty has made a complete departure from the established practice of the Navy in declining to hold a Court-Martial in the cases of the loss of His Majesty's ships since the outbreak of the present war. An examination of the naval records by Sir W. Laird Clowes reveals the fact that since 1652 the rule was established that in the case of every ship lost, captured, or surrendered, a Court-Martial should be assembled to deal with the captain or other survivor of the vessel. I will give your Lordships two illustrations to show how, in Sir W. Laird Clowes's mind, this rule practically did not admit of an exception. There was a ship called the "Jack," which struck her colours on July 21, 1781, and upon which no Court-Martial was held. Sir W. Laird Clowes infers from that fact that she was not a King's ship at all, but probably a merchantman. Again, in referring to the case of the "Blanche," a 44-gun frigate which in 1805 surrendered to a French force of four ships and one hundred guns and sank within a few hours, Sir W. Laird Clowes writes as follows on the subject of the Court-Martial held over Captain Mudge—
"In this ease it is clear that the 'Blanche' was in a desperate condition when she surrendered. The usual Court-Martial on the loss of the ship honourably acquitted Captain Mudge and congratulated him on his able and gallant conduct."
I find, from the same authority, that from the Revolution of 1688 down to the year 1901, when he finished his researches, there was a total of 1,008 of the King's ships that were lost, and no one can find in Laird Clowes any evidence whatever that any one of those in which there were survivors was not the subject of a Court-Martial. I do not say there were no such cases. I am not in a position to prove that. I say that any one studying Laird Clowes, who is the greatest authority, cannot find that he thought that there were any exceptions in this great list. I see that the Attorney-General the other day, speaking in the House of Commons, said there were twenty ships, all I think of a date somewhere between 1815 and 1840 or thereabouts, that were lost in which there was no Court-Martial. I dare say he is quite right, but I should be glad if the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government would give me the names of those ships, because it would be a very interesting matter for investigation to see what Laird Clowes
560
said about them and what the explanation is. Of course, there never were Courts-Martial in cases of ships of which there were no survivors; but Laird Clowes certainly thought that the custom of the Navy was practically universal in cases of ships lost where there were survivors.
I should like next to quote the Admiralty Regulations on this subject, because they entirely bear out the contention which I am trying to advance. I will first read No. 177 of the King's Regulations—
"When one of His Majesty's ships shall be wrecked, or otherwise lost or destroyed, or taken by the enemy, the command, power, and authority given to the captain, and to the other officers and the crew with respect to each other, shall remain and be in full force, as effectually as if such ship were not lost, until a Court-Martial shall have inquired into the cause of the loss or capture of such ship, or the officers and crew shall be otherwise disposed of and separated, as directed by the Naval Discipline Act."
Then there is Regulation No. 616. It is a long one and I will read only half of it; but the second half, which I shall omit, has no bearing on the argument. The Regulation is headed "Lives, Stores, Books, and Papers," and runs—
"If a ship is wrecked or otherwise lost or destroyed, the captain will use every exertion to preserve the lives of the crew; and when as many of them as possible have been saved, he is to use his utmost endeavours to save the stores, provisions, and furniture of the ship. He is to give his particular attention to the saving of all books and papers relating to the ship's accounts, that be may be enabled to cause the necessary books to be made out for transmission to the Admiralty immediately after the Court-Martial to inquire into the loss of the ship has taken place."
Then Regulation No. 1,355, which is headed "When Ship has been Wrecked," runs—
"In the event of a ship being captured, wrecked, or otherwise lost or destroyed, the officers and ship's company shall, subject to provisions of the Naval Discipline Act in force at the time, be entitled to full pay until the time of their being discharged, or removed into other of His Majesty's ships, or of their dying, unless the sentence of the Court-Martial held on the loss of the ship shall otherwise direct."
I do not think anybody could read those extracts from the King's Regulations without coming to the conclusion that the Admiralty have always hitherto contemplated the continuance of the custom of holding a Court-Martial in the loss of any one of His Majesty's ships.
Now I pass to the reasons given in the House of Commons the other day by the First Lord himself why this custom of the Service has been suspended. I must say that this part of his speech was very poor stuff, quite unworthy of his intelligence; and I think I can show your Lordships that those words are not unjust. First of all, the First Lord of the Admiralty said—
"To hear the talk in some quarters, one would suppose that the loss of a ship by mine or submarine necessarily involved a criminal offence.… One would suppose that it involved a criminal offence for which somebody should be brought to book."
Again he said—
"Losses by mine and submarine must frequently be placed on the same footing as heavy casualties on land. They cannot be treated as presumably involving a dereliction of duty or a lack of professional ability."
Those are the words of a man who knows what the naval view of Courts-Martial is, but who is trading on the ignorance of the public and throwing dust in their eyes; because there never has been connected with the holding of a Court-Martial any presumption of professional incapacity or of dereliction of duty, nor has it ever cast a slur on the officers tried. If the First Lord did not know that, then all I can say is that he was ignorant of a fundamental principle of naval discipline of which he ought not to have been ignorant; but if he knew it, then it was not an honest argument to attempt to cast discredit on the suggestion that Courts-Martial should be held by saying that the loss of a ship necessarily involved a criminal offence or a lack of professional ability.
The First Lord's next argument was concerned with the altered conditions of naval warfare—a perfectly legitimate point to discuss, but, as I think I shall be able to show, not really germane to the question. The First Lord said—
"The circumstances and conditions of modern naval warfare are entirely different from all previous experience. In old wars the capture or destruction of ships was nearly always accompanied by an act of surrender, which was a proper and very necessary subject for investigation by Court-Martial."
There were quite as many cases of Court-Martial when ships were lost by wreck. The real fact is that the particular cause and the circumstances of the loss have nothing whatever to do with it. The only question is that the ship has been lost.
562
How or why it has been lost has nothing whatever to do with the principle that because the ship has been lost it ought to be the subject of a Court-Martial. Therefore however much the conditions of naval warfare change, those conditions may have some effect on the expediency or convenience of the time of holding the Court-Martial, but they have no bearing whatever on the principle whether or not a Court Martial ought to be held. The First Lord's next argument referred to that particular point. He said that the conditions of naval warfare now are such that sometimes the actual holding of a Court-Martial might be very difficult and inconvenient. I concede that at once. No reasonable person would ever say that it should be other than a matter entirely at the discretion of the Admiralty when the Court-Martial is to be held. And with regard to the losses, there is a long list of which we know, beginning with the "Amphion" and ending with the "Formidable." I am quite prepared, if the Admiralty say so, to bow to their decision and admit that the time may not yet have Come when a Court-Martial can be held in all these cases with convenience, or possibly without advantage, to the public service. But I am not prepared to believe that in the case of none of these ships could a Court-Martial have been summoned with out grave loss to the public service.
The First Lord went on to say—
"Nothing could be worse for the Navy or the Admiralty than for public attention or naval attention to be riveted on half-a-dozen naval causes célèbres."
That is a quite deliberate erecting of a figure of straw in order to be able to knock it down. In the whole history of the Navy there has been no case—except the case, perhaps, of Admiral Byng, which I think became a cause c*élèbre after Admiral Byng ceased to exit—that I know of in which public attention was riveted on a naval cause célèbre when it was going on. The proof of the absurdity of the First Lord's argument lies in the fact that only the other day Admiral Troubridge was tried by Court-Martial by order of the Board of Admiralty in connection with the escape of the "Goeben." Was public attention then riveted on a naval cause célèbre? Why, the public never knew that the trial was being held. The evidence has never been published. The Admiralty

563
had it entirely in their power to keep the matter secret, and they have the same power with respect to any Court-Martial that may be held. So that the First Lord's argument will not stand examination for a moment. The fact is—and this is what I wish to lay particular stress upon—that this question of the holding of a Court-Martial in the case of ships that are lost in war or in peace is not merely a question between the Board of Admiralty and the captain or officers concerned. It is a much wider question even than that. It is a question between the officers involved and the rest of the naval service, and it is a question between the Navy and the public. The officers who are involved in the loss of a ship have the right that they should be cleared of responsibility before the rest of the great Service to which they belong, and the nation has a right to know under what circumstances the valuable ships that belong to it have been lost.
I will now quote Sir W. Laird Clowes to show your Lordships how this matter has been viewed for many generations past by the Navy, and how false is the impression on this subject which the First Lord attempted to give. This is the substance of Sir W. Laird Clowes's observations—
"It was understood that a Court-Martial on the loss of a ship need not necessarily imply any charge against the captain or other survivor. The whole story of the British Navy makes it clear that a captain and his ship are always associated for administrative purposes, and the captain has, of course, always been held absolutely responsible for the safety of his ship. If a ship is lost, no matter in whatever circumstances, the incident must be accounted for by the captain; and if the captain has been lost the Court-Martial is held upon any survivor with the object of determining, from such facts as are available, the causes of the disaster."
Again—
"The attitude of mind of officers of the Navy towards the supreme importance of Courts-Martial will be gathered from the action of Captain Pakenham, of the 'Crescent,' who, when his ship struck to the Dutch in 1781, refused to resume his command, considering that a Court-Martial was necessary to clear him from guilt."
And further—
"The principle of holding Courts-Martial achieved in its fulfilment two practical results—(1) Ascertaining the cause of the loss of the vessel and fixing responsibility of those concerned; and (2) providing for public information such facts relating to the destruction of public property as the taxpayer.3 of the country are entitled to be made acquainted with."
564
I had a letter from a distinguished Admiral, and these were the words he used—
"Courts-Martial are not at all meant as a slur on the captain or surviving officers and men, but a public opportunity for them to clear themselves."
And lastly I would give you the opinion on the same subject of two distinguished naval correspondents who write to the daily Press. It is necessary to make this evidence cumulative because I want the public to understand that the attitude of mind of the Navy to Courts-Martial has been quite different from what was suggested by the First Lord. The first of these naval correspondents writes—
"When a ship of His Majesty is lost, it is the rule that the captain of the ship is tried by Court-Martial, or, if he is lost with the ship, the survivors are tried. The assembling of a Court-Martial does not necessarily imply that an offence has been committed. The principle is that the reason why the ship was lost must be made clear."
And the other naval correspondent writes—
"The institution was maintained in olden days quite as much for the protection of officers who lost ships innocently as for the punishment of officers who lost them wrongfully. It was to the naval officer what the verdict of a jury is to the subject—the palladium of his liberties, the final acquittal of his peers."
I think in the face of that evidence it will be impossible for the noble Lord who is going to answer me, or for any other speaker or writer on this subject, to pretend, whether these Courts-Martial should be held or not, that the holding of them involves any slur necessarily on the officers who are the subject of the investigation.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with extracts, but I have some interesting cases here which I should like to cite because they all bear on and illustrate the subject and enable one to understand what the custom of the Navy has been. I have taken them as particularly interesting cases extending over a great period of years. After the action of the Dutch on July 26, 1657, William Howe, of the "Virgin," was tried by Court-Martial and shot. The captains of the "Blacknose," "John Elizabeth," and the "Blessing" were dismissed the Service. The next case is that of the captain of the "Cumberland," which was lost on October 10, 1707. He was court-martialed on his release from captivity—I ask your Lordships' particular attention to that fact—and honourably

565
acquitted. Captain Wyld, of the "Royal Oak," whose ship was lost on the same occasion, was dismissed the Service; and Captain Bolton, of the "Chester," was absolved from all blame. I pass on to May 8, 1744, when the "Northumberland" was lost. The captain, Thomas Watson, was killed. The first-lieutenant, Thomas Craven, and Allison, the master, were court-martialed. Craven was honourably acquitted, but Allison was condemned for surrendering the ship and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. In 1756 the "Warwick" was taken by the French. This is a very remarkable case. Captain Molyneux Shuldham was a prisoner of war for two years, and on his release was tried by Court-Martial and adjudged to have done his duty. The officers of the "Berwick," taken by the French on March 7, 1795, were court-martialed as soon as prisoners were exchanged, and they were honourably acquitted. On August 18, 1812, the "Attack" was forced to strike her colours to Danish gun-boats. Lieutenant Simmonds and his officers and men were most honourably acquitted by Court-Martial. H.M.S. "Tiger," which was run ashore at Odessa on May 12, 1854, was the subject of a Court-Martial which sat on board the "Victory" at Portsmouth in April, 1855—very nearly a year afterwards. The president of the Court was Rear-Admiral W. F. Martin, and the surviving officers and men of the ship were put on trial. The Court-Martial sat on the 12th, 13th and 14th of that month, and resulted in the acquittal of the lieutenant, Alfred Royer, and the reprimand of Francis Edington, the master.
I have given cases from every war, from the time of the Dutch wars and the wars of Cromwell right up to and inclusive of the Crimean war, to show how constant and how absolutely unbroken has been this custom. The last case that I am going to cite is that of the "Captain," which, as your Lordships will remember, was lost, I think, off Finisterre on September 6, 1870. Her captain, Captain Burgoyne, and the designer of the ship, Captain Coles, were both lost. Out of the ship's crew 475 were lost, and 18 saved. A Court-Martial was held on the survivors. I do not think there was a single officer among them; there may have been a warrant officer, possibly there was a Gunner, but certainly there was no higher officer. On June 16, 1871, Lord Lauderdale used these words in your Lordships' House—
566
"The Court-Martial that had sat to inquire into the loss of the 'Captain' found that the ship capsized by pressure of sail, assisted by the heave of the sea, and that the sail carried at the time of her loss, regard being had to the force of the wind and the state of the sea, was insufficient to have endangered a ship endued with a proper amount of stability. And they added: 'The Court, before separating, find it their duty to record their conviction that the "Captain" was built in deference to public opinion, expressed in Parliament, and in opposition to the views and opinions of the Controller and his Department, and that the evidence all tends to show that they generally disapproved of her construction.'"
Those are remarkable words to be found in the finding of a naval Court-Martial, and they show, I think, the extraordinary value of investigations of this kind. Here was the "Captain" lost, and the Court-Martial had the courage to say that she was lost because of her defective design, and that her defective design was not due to the fault of the Controller of the Admiralty but because there had been political and Parliamentary interference with the Controller and the ship had been built to this design in spite of his remonstrance. You could not have a clearer case of the great value to the public of Courts-Martial in order that they may know why their ships are lost.
Now I come to the words used by Lord Crewe in this House, in which he stated the circumstances under which in the opinion of the Admiralty, as voiced by him, Courts-Martial should be held. The noble Marquess said—
"The general view which the Admiralty take is that, where there is any question of a failure on the part of an officer to obey orders, to act with due sense of responsibility, or to take proper precautions, or in cases in which misbehaviour on the part of a crew or any portion of it is alleged to have led to disaster, it is advisable that a Court-Martial should be held; but in cases where those considerations do not in any degree arise, speaking generally the Admiralty hold that a Court-Martial may not be necessary."
I do not want to dwell now on the fact that those latter words, if that is the final view of the Board of Admiralty, imply a complete departure from the established custom of the Navy for more than two-and a-half centuries; but I wish to lay stress on the words which Lord Crewe used as to the circumstances in which the Admiralty think a Court-Martial should be held. Take the case of the "Formidable." I know nothing whatever about the circumstances of the loss of that vessel, but I have read in the public Press allegations in respect of the loss of the "Formid-

567
able" that exactly comply with the conditions laid down by Lord Crewe. The mere fact that these allegations have been publicly made seems to me a very strong argument indeed for holding a Court-Martial in this case; and I would apply exactly the same argument, though perhaps in a lesser degree, to the loss of such ships as the "Cressy," the "Hogue," and the "Aboukir." It is not a question merely between the Admiralty and the officers concerned; it is a question between those officers and the whole of the Navy, and between the Navy and the public.
I have laid down what I believe to be the undoubted custom of the Navy, a custom practically unbroken in peace or war for 250 years. Because even if the noble Lord can give me the names of ships where there were survivors and where there was not a Court-Martial, he certainly cannot give me the names of many; and the proportion that they can possibly bear to the number of cases in which Courts-Martial were held must be so small that my contention that this has been the unbroken practice of the Navy in peace and in war remains literally and actually true. I have tried to show what the attitude of the Navy to this question has been, and to dispose altogether of the suggestion that a Court-Martial necessarily involves a criminal offence or a slur on the character of the officers tried. I have, I think, succeeded in disposing of the arguments of the First Lord, which really were, as I have already said, quite unworthy of his powers and his intelligence. And I have shown also that the Admiralty, by its own Regulations, has always contemplated the holding of these Courts-Martial.
Having said that, I wish to state quite clearly that the responsibility in this matter can rest only on the Board of Admiralty. The Board of Admiralty can hold these Courts-Martial when they choose. There is no obligation, on them to hold the Court-Martial the week after the ship has been lost. From the cases I have read, I have shown that even at the time of the Crimean War a Court-Martial was held a year after the ship was lost; and in the case of the Napoleonic wars Courts-Martial were held on the return of officers to England after years of captivity. Therefore the argument of immediate inconvenience, although it may be quite sound for the moment, cannot be held permanently valid as a reason for never holding a Court-Martial on the loss of
568
these ships. Again, I can quite understand that evidence might come out in the course of some of these Courts-Martial which in the interests of the public service the Admiralty might not think should become public property; but that, again, is entirely within the power of the Admiralty to control. They have controlled it; not one single word has been published in respect of the Court-Martial on Admiral Troubridge. They could preserve exactly-the same secrecy in respect of the evidence given at any Court-Martial.
But I have one word to say about that. When the Admiralty hold a Court-Martial, although they have the right to withhold the evidence if they think it would be to the detriment of the public service to publish it, they have, in my opinion, no right to withhold from publicity the result of the Court-Martial. They have no business to bring an officer to trial and not publish the result. I say this with special reference to the case of Admiral Troubridge, because although it was announced with the authority of the Press Bureau that he had been ordered to haul down his flag and come home to be tried by Court-Martial, there has never been, so far as I know, any official announcement that he has been acquitted by that Court-Martial. The whole of the public knowledge on that subject has been derived from unofficial information in the public Press, and I say, in the most emphatic way, that although the Admiralty have the right to withhold the evidence in the interests of the public service, they have no right to suppress the result of a Court-Martial when once an officer has been tried.
In this connection I wish to read an extract from the First Lord's speech the other day, and I do so because whereas I have been obliged to differ from his attitude in respect to his other statements I am in a position entirely to endorse and support this one. The First Lord said—
"I must respectfully claim, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, an absolute discretionary power with regard to holding Courts-Martial or Courts of Inquiry."
I have conceded that, though I think that the discretionary power would be very ill-used if the whole practice of holding these Courts-Martial is abrogated. The First Lord went on to say that the Board of Admiralty must also have absolute discretionary power as to "the removal without trial of officers who have forfeited the confidence of the Board." I entirely

569
agree with that. In a period of great national emergency like the present there is no question that the Admiralty should have and must exercise the power of removing an officer from his command even without trial if he has forfeited their confidence. Again, the First Lord said that the Admiralty must reserve an absolute discretionary power as to "the publication of particular information on particular incidents." I have already said that I entirely concur with that. That, again, must be left to the judgment of the Board of Admiralty.
I have detained your Lordships at great length, I fear, but to make my case it was necessary to build it up with some kind of historical sequence. I make the Motion with which I shall conclude my speech because I have a deep conviction that this custom was for the best interests both of the Navy and of the public service. I think the Government are in danger of confusing two different principles in their policy of secrecy. There are matters which in a time of war like this should be kept from the possible knowledge of the enemy at all costs. With that I quite agree. But there are other matters which it is more important that our people should know than that the enemy should not know, and I think the Government have sometimes forgotten that and gone too far. After all, the strength of the nation at this time is based on its unity, on its confidence in the public service, and in its belief that the Government trust it. No greater blow could possibly be given to our national strength than that the public should have any cause to believe that the Government was wavering in its confidence in their patriotism or in their power of endurance. It is because the complete screen of secrecy which has been shut down on these naval disasters is bad for the national temperament, because I believe it proceeds mainly from a want of confidence in the public which the public have not deserved, and because I believe also that the suspension of this practice is injurious to the naval service, that I make this Motion.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the established custom of the Navy by which a Court-Martial is held to investigate the loss of any of His Majesty's ships is founded on the best interests both of the Navy and of the public, and that it is expedient that it should be maintained.— (The Earl of Selborne.)
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken with his usual ability in introducing this Motion, and he has been dealing with a subject of which he has evidently made a considerable study. I can assure him, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that we have no complaint to make of his introducing this subject of debate to the House or the length of the speech which he has delivered on this important matter. He certainly has the advantage of me in one respect. He was for a considerable time First Lord of the Admiralty, whilst I have never had the advantage of being associated with that Board. In the debate last week Lord Curzon said, with perfect truth, that a Department is better defended by a Minister who is familiar with the daily working of the Department than by someone who gets up the case for the occasion. I am sometimes inclined to wish that it were possible here to adopt the practice which obtains in some other countries of allowing a Minister to defend the policy of his Department in either House of Parliament. I wish it particularly to-day, for the noble Earl made a rather violent attack on my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think it would have added to the reality and to the liveliness of this debate were my right hon. friend able to, come here and speak for himself on this occasion.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I entirely agree.
LORD EMMOTT: However, that is not possible; and I have been asked by the Government to reply in the first place to the noble Earl. If the noble Earl will allow me, I shall dismiss the personal part of the case and deal entirely with the matter on its merits. The Motion which the noble Earl has moved asks the House to express the opinion that it is the established custom of the Navy that a Court-Martial should be held to investigate the loss of any of His Majesty's ships. The noble Earl, I noticed, did not claim that it was illegal not to hold a Court-Martial; but that has been said by some critics. I must in the first place state, in the most positive manner, that there is no law and no regulation which necessitates the holding of a Court-Martial in the case of the loss of any ship. I state that not only on my own authority but on the authority of the

571
Judge Advocate of the Fleet, whose knowledge of the law in regard to this matter is, I am sure, unquestioned by anybody.
When the noble Earl proceeded to prove his point, I confess that I did not altogether follow him. The first Regulation which he read—Regulation No. 177—does not seem to me to bear out his point in the least degree. That Regulation says—
"When one of His Majesty's ships shall be wrecked, or otherwise lost or destroyed, or taken by the enemy, the command, power, and authority given to the captain and to the other officers and the crew with respect to each ether, shall remain and be in full force, as effectually as if such ship were not lost, until a Court-Martial shall have inquired into the cause of the loss or capture of such ship, or the officers and crew shall be otherwise disposed of and separated, as directed by the Naval Discipline Act."
There is nothing in that to indicate that it is an invariable custom to hold a Court-Martial.
Although during the long history of the Navy the line has never been very clearly drawn between them, there are, as a matter of fact, three methods of formal investigation which can be used in regard to casualties in the Navy. The first is a Court-Martial where it appears that there may be a primd facie case for a charge against an individual officer or individual officers. If, for instance, an officer is accused of not having used his utmost exertions to bring his ship into action when ordered to do so, or if he has failed to encourage inferior officers or men to fight courageously, or if he has surrendered his ship without sufficient reason or has improperly withdrawn from the fight—in such a case a Court-Martial may be held in regard to a specific charge of breach of statute against the officer impugned. In that case, of course, the charges are formulated and delivered and the officer has every Opportunity of knowing beforehand the case which he has to meet, and the Court-Martial is held under Sections 2, 5, and 29 of the Act. The second case of a Court-Martial is a different one. In that case a Court-Martial is held to inquire into the loss of a ship and to ascertain whether or not there is reason to believe that any one is to blame. Sections 91 and 92 of the Act refer to this kind of Court-Martial. It is usual in that case for all the survivors to be nominally before the Court, and sometimes during the course of the investigation it is
572
found that a case is made out for blame against a particular officer, in which event the other kind of Court-Martial may be held later in order to investigate the specific charge. The third kind of formal investigation is a Court of Inquiry held under the King's Regulations. That is necessarily private; no evidence is taken on oath, and in nearly all cases nowadays a Court of Inquiry precedes a Court-Martial. Those are the three methods of formal investigation that are adopted with regard to losses in the Navy. So far as the law goes, the Admiralty has a complete discretion which, if any, of these methods of investigation should be adopted, or whether all of them should be dispensed with. It is quite evident that this must be so, for certainly the Admiralty has discretion which of the three should be adopted and there is no law or regulation which says that any one of the three must of necessity be held. Neither has any officer in the Navy a right to demand a Court-Martial of his own will.
I shall be told, of course, that it is not claimed that a Court-Martial is a legal necessity, but that a custom has grown up of holding a Court-Martial in the case of every loss of a ship—a custom so universally observed that it has become a recognised practice, whatever the circumstances, whether we are at peace or at war. If so, I am not quite clear how far this custom is supposed to go. I presume that it only refers to cases of ships that are lost, and that it does not refer to all ships that are stranded or hazarded or to innumerable smaller accidents that occur. I gather, too, that it does not refer to a great many of the breaches of the Naval Discipline Act, as to which, again, the Admiralty has always decided whether or not a Court-Martial should be held. In regard to all these, the Admiralty decides on the merits of the case put before it. I gather that this discretion is not impugned.
The claim, as I understand it, is that whenever a ship is lost, and particularly when valuable lives are lost at the same time, a rigid custom has grown up that a Court-Martial must be held into the circumstances. I have occupied such spare time as I have had during the last few days in examining the precedents. I do not want to overstate my case, and I willingly make this concession to the noble Earl—that in the majority of cases of the

573
loss of a ship in the past a Court-Martial has been held; but the rule has been by no means a universal one. The noble Earl referred to a Return dealing with ships belonging to His Majesty's Navy that were lost between 1815 and 1840. My right hon. friend the Attorney-General said in another place that in this Return, which I have in my hand, there, were twenty-one eases of ships lost in regard to which no Court-Martial had been held, and out of those twenty-one only six were cases in which the ship and all on board were lost so that there was nobody to hold a Court-Martial upon. The noble Earl asked whether I would give him the names. I shall be very glad to do so, but he will not expect me to read them out now. In a later Return I find one rather typical case. In 1878 the "Helvetia" collided with a coastguard cruiser, and the latter sank. In that ease a Board of Trade Inquiry was held into the collision. The finding of the inquiry was evidently considered quite sufficient, and apparently no inquiry of any sort or kind was held by the Admiralty into that occurrence. Therefore whilst I admit that it has been usual to hold a Court-Martial, I cannot admit that a rigid custom has grown up. On the other hand, the only case of the loss of a ship during this war which is really comparable to these long lists of losses of which I have spoken in the period since 1815 was the case of the "Oceanic," and in regard to that a Court Martial was held and specific charges were framed against the officers in charge.
When the noble Earl invites the House to say that it is an established custom to hold an inquiry into every loss, he puts his case far too high. He would take away the discretion always hitherto vested in and always hitherto used by the Admiralty, a discretion which certainly ought not to be interfered with at the present time. In opposition to the claim which the noble Earl makes, I venture to put forward another. It is not my own discovery. I have it from other people who have studied this question far more deeply, and who are far more competent to give an opinion upon it than I am. The view I put forward is this. I maintain that the precedents show that it has not been the custom to hold a Court-Martial in time of war unless a ship or some of the men on board were captured, or unless some definite charge was made against somebody. I believe
574
that rule is far better justified by the fact than the Resolution which the noble Earl asks the House to adopt this evening. I have not had time to study every precedent, particularly the precedents of Napoleonic times, but I believe that the view which I have just expressed is a correct induction front what occurred in Napoleonic times. In the Crimean War there were three cases of ships lost—the "Viper," the "Tiger," and the "Jasper." The only Court-Martial held to inquire in regard to those three ships was on the "Tiger," and she was captured by the enemy. In the other two cases the officers were tried on specific charges. In the China War there were three Courts-Martial on the only three ships lost, but they, again, were lost in an action with the Peiho Forts; two of them sank and one was stranded.
I have dealt with the law and custom of this case. The only other question I have to deal with is whether or not the recent action of the Admiralty as to Courts-Martial is justified by the circumstances of the time. I need not remind you that we are at war. We are in the greatest war, as regards numbers and armaments employed, that the world has ever seen. New factors appear in this war, factors different from any that our Navy has had to deal with in any previous war. The torpedo discharged from a submarine is a new factor; the reckless sowing of mines on our trade routes without notice is a new factor, and the fact of those mines being large enough to blow up a huge battleship is a comparatively new factor. In these circumstances I say that the Admiralty is justified in holding that cases of loss may occur in which it may not be necessary to hold a Court-Martial. I speak on this question with some diffidence, for, as your Lordships know, I am only representing the Admiralty for the occasion. But will venture to put, before the House, before I sit down, sonic reasons which seem to me to be very strong and to justify the Admiralty in the course which it has adopted. The claim is that a Court-Martial should be held as to every ease of loss. The Admiralty view is that in a number of cases of loss that have occurred a Court-Martial is unnecessary. But I desire to say on behalf of the Admiralty that, wherever they have felt that it would be useful or that information could be obtained which they had not in their possession, a Court of Inquiry has been held.

575
My second point is this. The new factors to which I have alluded have fundamentally changed the position of naval warfare. Many more cases must occur under present conditions than have occurred in the past where a ship is lost without any blame being attributable to anybody. We cannot look into the minds of our predecessors, but I think it is abundantly clear that the customs before and even long after 1815 were not conceived in the light of the experience of 1915. In the old days practically no warships were sunk or captured in fight by the enemy except by gunfire or boarding, and at that time all the fighting was above the level of the sea. In this war no ship of His Majesty's has been captured by the enemy; not a single sailor has been captured from one of our ships by the enemy; and therefore the conditions have not arisen under which, as a rule, Courts-Martial have been held in the past.
In the third place, the holding of any considerable number of Courts-Martial—a large number is asked for by the noble Earl—at a time of intense pressure such as this, involving the presence, as they would, of officers of high rank whose services are urgently needed elsewhere at every moment, must necessarily interfere with the main work of the Navy. I do beg that your Lordships will not underrate the practical inconvenience. If an Admiral has to be tried by Court-Martial, the Court must be formed either of senior flag officers or captains who are not. employed afloat at the present time and consequently have very little experience of war conditions—and thus they would make a rather unsuitable Court—or his judges must be the Admirals commanding the battleship and cruiser squadrons and captains commanding battleships and cruisers of the Grand and Channel Fleets. These Fleets have to proceed to sea at a moment's notice. Their squadrons are in constant movement. The difficulties of convening and maintaining a Court under such conditions are enormous. The greatest inconvenience was caused in this respect by the trial of Admiral Troubridge, which, while it lasted, sensibly impaired the mobility of a portion of the Channel Fleet and hampered the naval operations. Again, the witnesses may be very numerous, and they must be collected from ships all over the Fleet, which is in constant movement. Many of these witnesses would be men
576
holding positions vital to the fighting efficiency of these ships. No one can tell how long a trial would last, as in cases of this importance counsel would be employed and every latitude given to the defence. If the Court were interrupted, the whole of the proceedings might have to be recommenced; and as long as the Court sat the whole of the energies of the flag and other officers involved would be employed in connection with it.
I must again remind your Lordships that we are at war, and, furthermore, that the great naval decision has not yet been taken. At any moment the Fleets may have to go to sea, and the work and responsibility of the Admirals in command are of the most exacting and unbroken nature. The speed and scale of modern operations and their complexity are out of all relation to those of former times. But even in the time of Nelson it is not clear that serious military advantages were not lost by the holding of Courts-Martial. I would remind your Lordships particularly of the fact that the Court-Martial on Admiral Calder led to the withdrawal from Nelson's fleet of one of its most important units on the eve of Trafalgar. If the absence of that unit had led to a different decision at Trafalgar the whole course of history might have been altered by the holding of a Court-Martial. Even after the Court-Martial is over the practical inconvenience does not cease, because the members of the Board of Admiralty have to give the closest possible attention to hundreds of pages of evidence and prepare their opinions upon it. All this may be very well or necessary after the war is over or after the enemy has been decisively beaten, but it is not a position which should be insisted upon at the present time.
Every effort has been made from hour to hour and day to day to cope with the dangers with which we are confronted, and the whole of the attention of the Admiralty must be concentrated upon the immediate urgency. It will be time afterwards to apportion responsibility for any mistakes that may have been made. For the time being the interest of this country is in the successful prosecution of the war, and that must be considered to have paramount claims. I desire most earnestly to impress that practical argument upon your Lordships. I think that practical difficulty must have been felt in old times,

577
for I find one record of a Court-Martial held in 1814 on a ship which had come to grief in 1809. Well, that was after Trafalgar. Our command of the sea at that time was unchallenged and unchallengeable, but in this war the great naval battle has yet to be fought. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that this argument is carrying me rather far if it is pushed to its logical conclusion, but I use it for this purpose. It does, at any rate, clearly prove that it is undesirable at a time like this, whatever may be done later, to hold Courts-Martial which are unnecessary and from which the Admiralty feels it has nothing to learn which it cannot learn in other ways. And if there are some here who think that my argument goes too far, I am authorised to state emphatically—and I can give this amount of consolation to the noble Earl—that the action of the Admiralty during the war is entirely without prejudice to any action it may deem desirable to take when the war is over.
There is one other reason why in the middle of a war, if it can be avoided, it is not advisable to have Courts-Martial which call for great public attention. The experience of Courts-Martial in the 18th century shows that they led to great bickerings, to constant dissatisfaction, and not infrequently actually set the nation by the ears when the energies of the nation were badly needed for the war in hand. The case of Admirals Matthews and Lestork in 1774 was one; the famous case of Admiral Byng in 1757 was another; and an even more famous case was that of Admirals Keppel and Palliser in 1879. In all those cases there were pamphlets written and debates in Parliament, some of them of a highly personal character. There was a great stir in the country, and it cannot be said that this did other than harm to the prosecution of the war in hand. On all these grounds I ask the House to pause before it adopts the Resolution of the noble Earl. In matters of the greatest possible importance, in questions of the highest strategy, in the disposition of the Fleet, in everything that is vital to the safety of these islands at the moment we are bound to trust the Admiralty. Ought we to try to force on the Admiralty now, in regard to the loss of ships and even the loss of brave men who, alas! have gone to their deaths, the holding of Courts-Martial from which they are convinced they have nothing of impor-
578
tance to learn which they cannot discover by other means?
I have shown—indeed, it is not disputed—that no law has been broken. I have shown, I hope conclusively, that no invariable custom has been disregarded. In these circumstances the Board of Admiralty claim full and free discretion as to whether they hold Courts-Martial or not. This is a decision to which they have come after giving the matter their mature deliberation, and which they consider indispensable to the prosecution of the naval war in which they are engaged. In this matter they earnestly desire that the House will support them with its confidence and goodwill. I have stated the case to the best of my knowledge and ability, and I am now content to leave it in your Lordships' hands.
*THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I desire to say a few words on this matter, and having regard to the speech to which we have just listened what I had thought of saying may be reduced to extremely small proportions. I do not think Lord Emmott would suggest that there was anything in the speech of the noble Earl or in the Resolution itself which would necessarily affect the absolute discretion of the Admiralty in any particular case to take the course they thought fit. If it were so, I can only say that I should not support the Resolution. But it does appear to me that a great part of the noble Lord's speech was directed to meeting a case which was not made at all by the noble Earl. The noble Earl appeared to me to concede to the full that there was no absolute legal or statutory obligation on the Admiralty to hold a Court-Martial. Notwithstanding that he urged—I venture to think rightly—that the custom was so nearly general as to be practically universal, but that in particular circumstances the Admiralty might exercise their discretion and abstain from holding a Court-Martial. I venture to think that there is no word in the Resolution that necessarily fetters the Admiralty's discretion. The words of the Resolution are—
"That this Home is of opinion that the established custom of the Navy by which a Court-Martial is held to investigate the loss of any of His Majesty's ships is founded on the best interests both of the Navy and of the public, and that it is expedient that it should be maintained."

579
The noble Earl himself was at pains to say that he could conceive that at the time of or immediately after a disaster which might render a Court-Martial desirable it might be quite inexpedient to hold a Court-Martial; and he gave instances in which Courts-Martial had been postponed to a convenient and proper time. The effect of this Resolution, therefore, would in no way be to force the hands of the Admiralty to hold a Court-Martial at a time when the holding of it could in any way affect the movements of the Fleet or the interests of the Service.
I am not quite clear what the Government's position is. It will be remembered that with the exception of the case of the "Oceanic" there have, in fact, been no Courts-Martial in respect of the losses of ships. I am not making and do not intend to make any complaint of that. I think that every one in the country is prepared to support the Admiralty to the utmost, and I can assure the noble Lord that I speak to-night in no spirit of criticism. My desire is to understand exactly the position which the Government take up. There having been no Courts-Martial held, it was not unnatural that this fact should be the subject of inquiry. In my opinion the noble Lord went too far if he contested—I am not quite sure that he did contest—the statement that the holding of Courts-Martial in these cases was the custom of the Navy. I think he must have overlooked some words contained in Section 91 of the Naval Discipline Act, 1866. It is a very short section, and I will read the whole of it—
"When any one of Her Majesty's ships shall be wrecked or lost or destroyed, or taken by the enemy, such ship shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to remain in commission until her crew shall be regularly removed into some other of Her Majesty's ships of war, or until a Court-Martial shall have been held, pursuant to the custom of the Navy in such cases, to inquire into the cause of the wreck, loss, destruction, or capture of the said ship."
I think that the words "pursuant to the custom of the Navy in such cases" can only mean one thing—that the draftsmen of that Act and the Parliament that passed it assumed that the holding of Courts-Martial was a general custom. I am not going to say it was invariable, for I think there were a good many exceptions.
But the real point is that attention was called in Parliament to the absence of these Courts-Martial, and I think that if
580
the answer then given had been the answer that has been given to us to-night, it is quite possible that this debate might not be taking place. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his interesting statement to the House of Commons, and the Attorney-General, in the course of the same debate, said that as a matter of principle during the war disasters to His Majesty's ships would not form the subjects of Courts-Martial; that it should be the rule that there should not be Courts-Martial, and the exception that there should. That seemed to me exactly the converse of the true proposition, and I think the statement led to misunderstanding.
An officer may meet with a disaster at sea in which to all appearance, as far as the public can judge, perhaps as far as his brother officers can judge, there may have been some want of caution or apparent negligence on his part. That may or may not be true; it may or may not have been the result of superior orders; but unless and until the officer in question has the customary opportunity of a Court-Martial he remains not only with his career damaged but with his reputation at stake. As regards the employment of officers, nobody would dispute the absolute discretion of the Admiralty; but there is something besides employment. The reputation of an officer is of great value to him, and the way in which he can reestablish his reputation, if he can, is by appealing to his brother officers who are the most competent tribunal to try the issue and to pronounce upon it. It is, in fact, the trial by his peers to which he is entitled. I do not for one moment contest that it might be extremely unsuitable to hold a Court-Martial at a particular moment. If the answer given by the noble Lord to-night means that in important cases or in cases where there is any real reason for it, investigation will at some time or another be made, then speaking for myself and myself only I should say that, both as regards the public and as regards the Service, it ought to be a fairly satisfactory answer.
But I still think there is some ambiguity in the speeches of the First Lord and the Attorney-General. Secrecy and silence, however right at the moment, is not right for ever, and at some time things may be disclosed which it might not be right to disclose at this time. In that connection

581
there is one point that does rather press upon me. It is true that the law—because it is the law under the King's Regulations, which are statutory—provides that a Court-Martial should be open. I can conceive circumstances in which it would be most undesirable, certainly during the war and very likely after the war, that all the evidence produced before a Court-Martial and even perhaps the technical findings should be disclosed. I speak only for myself when I say that I should not be disposed to offer any opposition to an alteration of the Regulations which would empower the Government or the Lords of the Admiralty in suitable cases and on their own responsibility to publish merely the finding—the conviction or acquittal, or something which would indicate the general result of the finding—without details. That would get rid of one difficulty. But I am certain that no member of the Government would desire to withhold anything in the way of justice from those who by their great gallantry are at this moment shielding us and providing us with relative immunity from the consequences of war, and I am sure that no action they may take or word they may say will lead any naval officer to think that at some time or another in a serious case he may not receive at the hands of his brother officers that justice which I contend with some confidence should be afforded him by the custom of the Navy over a period of certainly more than one and a-half centuries. I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at this length, but it seems to mc most important that we should know to-night what is the real position taken up by the Government on this matter. I can assure them that in everything they do in the interests of the great Service for which they are responsible, they will have the support not only of this House and of the other House but of every man in this country.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite replies to the extremely temperate observations of my noble friend who has just sat down I may be permitted to say half a dozen words. I rioted with pleasure that the noble Lord who speaks for the Admiralty told the House that he made no complaint of my noble friend (Lord Selborne) for having brought this subject before us. Indeed, it would have been impossible for His
582
Majesty's Government to complain of the course which my noble friend has adopted, because if one thing has been established clearly by these discussions it is this, that His Majesty's Government have introduced a very marked change of policy with regard to the granting of Courts-Martial. It was our duty to call attention to that new departure. We have never claimed that the old practice was founded upon the letter of any Act of Parliament, but we do point to the fact that the custom of the Navy is referred to again and again in various Statutes, some of which have been quoted this evening. My noble friend Lord Desart, in particular, quoted with great effect a clause from the Naval Discipline Act referring to the established "custom of the Navy." We have never contended that the custom was absolutely invariable, but we have contended, and we contend still, that it was a well established custom; and I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Admiralty himself admitted that it was the general custom although there were exceptions, upon some of which he dwelt during the course of his argument.
That there was to be a new departure was made clear by the noble Marquess who leads the House when he made a short speech upon this subject the other day. We gathered from him that the old custom was to be abandoned, and that Courts-Martial were, to be granted only in certain cases which the noble Marquess specified with great clearness. He mentioned, in particular, cases where there had been a failure on the part of the officer in charge of a ship to obey instructions; eases in which there had been a failure to take necessary and proper precautions; cases where the officer had failed to assume responsibility which it was his duty to assume. Those were cited as the exceptional cases in which Courts-Martial might be granted, the rule being that trial by Court-Martial was no longer to be granted according to the old usage of the Navy. I think, if I may say so, that His Majesty's Government have made a mistake in attempting to minimise the extent of this change of policy. They have tried, by searching about in musty records for precedents, to show that the custom was not invariable. But beyond doubt this policy is a new departure, and a very conspicuous new departure which has attracted a great deal of attention both in and out of the Service.

583
I was not greatly impressed by the reasons adduced in support of the change. The noble Lord who speaks for the Admiralty ran over them this evening. I confess that it struck me, as he proceeded, that most of his arguments had been anticipated by my noble friend behind me (Lord Selborne), and that some, at any rate, of the reasons which he mentioned were of a singularly inconclusive character.
I take, in the first place, the plea that the conditions of naval warfare have been profoundly altered. No one will dispute that. The mine and the torpedo are new features in naval warfare. But is that really a reason why an officer who loses his ship should not have the right of claiming a Court-Martial? The argument is founded upon what I believe to be a fallacy—I mean the fallacy that a Court-Martial involves an accusation against a particular officer. That, I think, is not so. A Court-Martial is instituted for two reasons—in the first place, to give the officer in charge of the ship an opportunity of clearing himself of any suspicion with regard to the manner in which he has handled her; and, in the second place, to give the public an opportunity of knowing something of the facts of the case. Surely for both of those reasons a Court-Martial is not less necessary because a ship has wandered into a mine-field, or otherwise got into difficulties, than it was in the days when mines and torpedoes were unknown.
Another reason that I have seen alleged seems to me also a most inconclusive one. I have seen it said that the apprehension of a Court-Martial would lead officers to "play for safety" and not take risks when in the interests of the Service they ought to take them. I believe that to be a profound misconception. Let us take the case of an officer who is hesitating whether he shall take a risk or not. What is it that makes him hesitate to take it? Not because he is thinking of a Court-Martial when he comes home, but because he is thinking of the precious lives on board his ship, of the value of the ship itself, of the injury to the defences of the Empire if that ship should be lost. Those are the things, if anything, that would make him think twice, and not the fear of being tried by Court-Martial. If there is any doubt upon that point I believe that it can be resolved if His Majesty's Government would make it their business to
584
ascertain how this matter is regarded by naval officers themselves. I am assured that in the great majority of cases if they had to set upon one side of the account the liability to be tried by Court-Martial and on the other the denial of the opportunity of clearing themselves and the risk of being, perhaps, subjected to penalties without a Court-Martial—which is a thing that may happen—they will infinitely prefer to face the Court-Martial rather than to abide the issue in another way.
Then comes a reason to which I am inclined to attach more weight than to the others. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Emmott) dwelt with great force upon the detriment which would be occasioned to the Service if, at a moment when all the energies of the Navy are concentrated upon the great naval struggle which is in progress, officers were withdrawn from their ships and made to serve upon Courts-Martial. I think that argument is entitled to weight if you are to assume that it follows of necessity that the Court-Martial must be convened at once. But I think the noble Lord himself gave us cases—certainly my noble friend Lord Selborne did—where the Court-Martial did not take place immediately but took place months or even, perhaps, years after the loss of the ship, and when, consequently, there would not be the same difficulty in convening the Court. If we are to accept my noble friend's Motion, I should do it with the mental reservation that I did not for a moment contemplate that a Court ought always to be assembled immediately, but that it could be assembled at whatever time the Board of Admiralty in their discretion thought convenient.
Another reason that the noble Lord advanced was the danger that in the course of these proceedings secrets might be revealed which it was desirable to keep from the public generally, and especially-from the enemy. Cannot that difficulty be overcome by the simple expedient of carrying on the inquiry with closed doors and denying the publication of the evidence to the public? The very thing happened in the case of the Court-Martial on Admiral Troubridge. That gallant officer was acquitted, but so far as I am aware the proceedings of the Court have been carefully kept secret. I own, therefore, that I am not greatly impressed by the reasons which have been brought forward on the part of the Board of Admiralty. But what

585
impressed me much more is that I thought I detected throughout the speech of the noble Lord a desire to take a much less rigid view of the case than has hitherto been taken by the Department for which he speaks. He claimed that we must allow the final discretion to rest with the Board of Admiralty. We none of us dispute that. On the contrary, we recognise to the full that the ultimate decision in all these cases must rest with the Board of Admiralty; and my noble friend went out of his way to guard himself against any claim to deny that discretion to the Board. But we venture to suggest that this new policy—for it is a new policy—should be applied with great care and tact; and unless I misunderstood the noble Lord I gathered from him that he was prepared to admit that what was being done to-day was to be regarded as a special measure, justifiable while the war was in progress, but, without prejudice to what might happen when the war was over. That is, I think, a not unimportant admission on the part of His Majesty's Government; and if I have not misinterpreted the noble Lord, I am not sure that if I were in my noble friend's place I should not be content with that assurance. But if he desires anything more, I venture to suggest—and I think that what I am suggesting is not out of accord with what was said by my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Desart)—that my noble friend's Resolution might end with the statement that it is expedient that the established custom should be maintained, with the insertion of the words "subject to any necessary exceptions." That would concede to the full that liberty of judgment of which we do not desire to deprive the Board of Admiralty; and if the noble Earl (Lord Beauchamp) who is for the moment leading the House saw his way to accepting the Motion so amended, I am able to say that my noble friend behind me (Lord Selborne) would gladly insert those words.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the noble Marquess appreciates, I am sure, the difficulty, to which he has already called attention in this House, under which we suffer when a debate of this kind is initiated here. It was only the other day that the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, referred to the disadvantage under which your Lordships' House suffers from
586
the absence of any direct representative of the Board of Admiralty when we discuss naval matters. Your Lordships will therefore realise all the more readily the difficulty when I am asked at somewhat brief notice to accept an amendment of or an addition to a Resolution of this important kind. The noble Earl who moved the Resolution realises, no doubt, that the mere passage of it by your Lordships' House would probably not of itself affect in any way the practice of the Board of Admiralty. It would be necessary for a similar Resolution to be passed by the House of Commons before it would become operative. In those circumstances I confess that I should deprecate the passage of this Resolution at the present time, for the reasons which have been put before your Lordships by my noble friend behind me (Lord Emmott).
It seems to me that a large part of the discussion which has taken place has ranged round one, perhaps not the most important, part of the Resolution which is now before your Lordships. Whether it be "the established custom of the Navy" has really been the question which has attracted the attention of the noble Lords who have addressed the House. I feel it would have been of greater use had we been able to devote more time and attention to the other part of the Resolution, and to have discussed whether the discontinuance of this custom was in the best interests of the Navy and of the public. It is true that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Desalt) referred to it from the point of view of the Navy, and it is to that I wish to refer. Meanwhile I think it is only fair to point out that we have in the Kings Regulations a perfectly clear Regulation which points out that the present practice of the Board of Admiralty is no sudden or new departure from what was contemplated in the past, because in Regulation No. 666a it is laid down that a Court-Martial should not be called unless upon full consideration of all the available information there is reasonable ground for thinking that any one or more of the survivors is to blame. It is therefore not a sudden decision that has been come to by the Board of Admiralty since the beginning of this war.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition was unready to lay the same emphasis upon the arguments which were

587
used by my noble friend behind me with regard to the changed circumstances of modern warfare making any difference to the continuance of the former custom, and he specially said, I think, that Courts-Martial were held not only to find out what might be the cause of the loss of the ship, but more for the sake of the officer himself. To deal for one moment with the first of those questions, it is perfectly obvious that in a great many cases there is not now the same obscurity with regard to the loss of a ship as there very of ten was in times gone by. There does not seem to be any obscurity if a ship has been lost by a mine. Therefore there is less need for an inquiry than there was in days when the loss might perhaps have been due to many other and different circumstances.
Let us take the case of the object for which these Courts-Martial should be held. I do not suppose it would be said that they should be held for the sake of the Admiralty. The Admiralty has the means, by a Court of Inquiry, of obtaining all the necessary information if the authorities do not think they possess it already. For the sake of the public? In a great many cases it was suggested by the noble Earl opposite that some of the information which was collected by the Admiralty should be withheld from the public; and I think we can all see how exceedingly reasonable that course of action would be in cases where matters of a technical kind would have to be given in evidence. On the question of privacy, it is perfectly true that in cases we can call to mind there has been no dispute on the ground that the evidence was kept private and only the conclusions given to the public. But in those cases generally the conclusions have been favourable to the officer. Your Lordships might very well consider that there might be charges, until the full evidence was given to the public, that the officer had not been fairly dealt with if the decision of the Court-Martial had not been in his favour.
But on behalf of the officers, is not there this consideration—namely, whether an Inquiry on a specific charge is not very much fairer to the officers than such a roving inquiry as a Court-Martial to inquire generally into their conduct on this or that occasion. But as the noble Earl opposite no doubt realises, a Court-Martial on a specific charge in a case of
588
any difficulty is always preceded by a Court of Inquiry. Definite charges are framed, and a circumstantial letter—that is the technical phrase, if I am rightly informed—which corresponds to the opening speech of the prosecutor, is given to the accused some days before the trial. The letter so given is generally perfectly clear in showing the particular respect in which the accused officer will have to make his defence. I ask your Lordships to contrast this with the position of those people whose conduct is inquired into under the other kind of Court-Martial. In that case there is no charge; there is no circumstantial letter; the accused has no means of knowing what points are made against him except in so far as he may gather them as he hears the evidence. In those circumstances I believe you would generally find, in a case of this kind, that the naval officer himself would not like the inquiry to be held under the specific paragraph in the Act to which we have been referred by more than one previous speaker.
I do not know that I can usefully add anything more in answer to the observations which were addressed to your Lordships by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, except to deprecate once more the passage of this Resolution by your Lordships' House at a time when all our energies are concentrated upon the successful prosecution of the war. I can readily repeat the assurance which was given by my noble friend behind me with regard to the attitude of the Admiralty in these cases—that the decisions which they have so far come to have been arrived at without prejudice. And it is not in my own opinion impossible, as time goes on and we see that the present practice has not had the detrimental effects which the noble Earl fears, that even noble Lords opposite will come to see that the course which has been adopted by the Admiralty is a proper and wise one.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I confess that I was more impressed by the opening sentences of the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down than by the arguments which he adduced at a later stage. He began by saying that it was extremely difficult for him and for any noble Lord on the Government Bench at present to say precisely what view the Admiralty would take of the Resolution if amended as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that it

589
should be. What we on this side of the House feel is this. We do not want at all to interfere with the discretion of the Admiralty. We feel that there may be grave difficulties in detaching from the Service officers of high standing to attend a Court-Martial at the present time. We are perfectly willing to agree that the Admiralty should not be pressed in that matter, and that any Court-Martial that might be thought necessary by the Admiralty should be postponed until such a time as it can be conveniently taken. But we feel that the Admiralty have substituted another custom for what up to the present time has been the custom of the Navy in these matters. That my noble friend Lord Selborne has conclusively proved. In our view it is advisable that that custom, subject of course to exceptions, as every custom must be, should be continued. But the Admiralty have reversed the custom and made it the rule not to hold Courts-Martial, instead of maintaining the rule to hold a Court-Martial when a ship is lost or taken by the enemy.
LORD EMMOTT: There has been no case of "taken by the enemy."
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Then let me say lost. Lord Emmott mentioned three cases in the China War. I am not quite sure that he did not say that one or more of those three cases was of a ship taken by the enemy; however, they were lost in an attack on forts, and that is precisely the kind of case in this war. Take the "Formidable" and other ships named by my noble friend. There the matters, so far as a layman can express an opinion, really did demand some kind of inquiry. It does suggest itself to me that it is not advisable for us to treat this as a Motion hostile to the Admiralty or to His Majesty's Government. We do not want to ask the House to divide upon it. We feel, however, that, amended in the way my noble friend has suggested, it is a Motion that in substance the Admiralty, after consideration of this discussion, might find themselves able to accept; and in order that an opportunity for further consideration may be given I would venture to move the adjournment of the debate so that the House may not at the present moment, in the absence of the noble Marquess who leads the House, express any opinion at all upon the Motion.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the further debate adjourned sine die.

INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS' PAY.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions—

1. By what regulation are officers of Indian Cavalry serving in Europe required to pay hire at the rate of £7 per year for the horses they provided for themselves and sold to Government, in most cases at a loss?

2. Is it not the case that officers of the Indian Cavalry are allowed 30 rupees or £2 a month per horse as "horse allowance," to cover expenses of feed, pay of attendants, cost and upkeep of saddlery and horse clothing, whereas these officers, while serving in Europe, are compelled to pay 1s. 4d. a day, or £2 a month, per horse for feed alone? Is it not the fact that the wear and tear of saddlery and the wages of attendants are much greater during war time in Europe than in peace time in India; and if so, is it proposed to make this difference good in any way?

3. Since officers of the Indian Cavalry Corps serving in France are required to maintain three chargers, and are required to pay for the feed of all three at the rates quoted in the last Question, is it proposed to make officers any allowance to enable them to meet this extra charge?

4. By what regulations, and why, are officers of Indian units serving in Europe required to pay for their rations at the rate of 1s. 9d. per day while in India they are only required to pay 1s. 4d.? Are any steps being taken to reduce this charge?

5. Is it true that officers of every rank of Indian Cavalry serving in the Indian Cavalry Corps in Europe have the following deductions made from their pay: £73 per annum horse feed, £21 per annum horse hire, and about £31 per annum for rations, a total of £125 per annum exclusive of the cost of rations for

591
Indian servants? Are any steps proposed to be taken to reduce this hardship; and is it the fact that officers of the British Expeditionary Force are not forced to make any such payments, and in addition are in receipt of Field Allowance?

6. Is any compensation going to be paid to officers of the Indian Army serving their country in France for the provision of a complete kit suitable for a winter campaign in Europe, and also for the considerable loss entailed by storing their belongings in India during their absence?

On January 8 last I put a Question to His Majesty's Government concerning the deductions made from the pay of Indian officers who were with our Expeditionary Force in France, and in his answer the noble Marquess who leads the House said—
"We have represented that matter to the War Office, and I understand that it is receiving sympathetic consideration there. It was last month that we asked the War Office about it, and I should hope that the rates will be equalized; but I cannot hold out any hope that they will be spared the payment altogether: because the Indian conditions are maintained throughout."
I can understand that the Indian conditions should be maintained throughout, but since these Indian officers have been at the Front there have been larger deductions made than is the case when they are in India. I think it is rather hard if they have to fight in Europe that these deductions should be made.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I think I can best make the point clear to the House if I may be allowed to explain quite shortly what the method is by which officers are paid in the Indian Army and in the British Army. The ordinary regimental pay, as it is called, which is received by an officer in the British Army is a rate of pay which does not include a number of things—rations, and items of that kind. When it comes to a question of his food, he receives either rations or an allowance in lieu thereof—and that arrangement applies to a good many other allowances of a similar kind. The total pay of the British officer is made up by his usual pay and a certain number of these allowances. The Indian officer,
592
on the other hand, receives what is called a consolidated rate of pay, which includes all these kinds of extras. Therefore when an Indian officer goes on service, or on manœuvres, and receives such a thing as rations—for which allowance has already been made in his consolidated rate of pay—a deduction has to be made from his pay, That explains why deductions are being made at the present time from the pay of Indian officers and not from that of British officers. That applies to both rations and forage.
Then there is the question of horse hire. The Indian system is that the officer receives with his pay a total amounting to £24 a year, out of which he has to provide for the purchase, the forage, and for the maintenance of his horse. The system under which officers in the British Army have horses is that they receive horses from the Government. This was one of the things that was done, if I remember rightly, in the time of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton), and it was one of the measures taken to decrease the cost to officers. The Government provides chargers, the officer paying to the Government a sum of £7 a year as hire. When the Indian officers came to this country they brought with them their horses. They sold them to the Government, and then either hired the same horses from the Government or other horses for £7 a year; but they continued to draw the £24 a year horse allowance on the Indian scale. The fact that they have to keep an extra horse and thus pay for the hire of three horses instead of two is due to three horses being the proper scale for an officer on active service in this country instead of two as in India. Of course, they draw an extra £24, and pay an extra £7.
I think the grievance that exists with regard to the deductions for rations is due to the amount deducted. When deduction is made in India from the pay of an officer for rations he is required to pay 1s. 4d., but the deduction which has been made from his pay while serving on the Continent at the present time has been on the home scale—namely, 1s. 9d. In the same way, whereas the deduction for forage is 8d. in India, a different scale, rather below the English scale but a great deal above the Indian scale, of 1s. 4d. has been made from his pay. It is, of course, admitted that the fact that these deductions are on

593
a higher rate for these officers serving on the Continent than is made from their pay in India does press hardly on them. The War Office admit that, and the matter is at the present moment under consideration. The War Office, the India Office, and the Government of India are in communication on the question. A certain amount of time has elapsed since the noble Earl first drew attention to this, and I am sorry that we have not been able to produce a definite answer, but I can assure him that the matter is going forward as rapidly as possible and that we hope that it will be possible to make an adjustment. I think I have met all the points raised in the first five Questions of the noble Earl. The last Question raises rather a different point, and I understand that communications are passing between the War Office and the India Office on this subject as well as on the others.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Will the allowances be retrospective? Will the officers be refunded the money which they have already paid?
LORD LUCAS: Without definitely pledging the War Office on that subject, the noble Earl may be satisfied that they will try and act as fairly as they can in the matter. If the injustice is admitted, as
594
it is, they are bound to take it up; but I do not want definitely to pledge the War Office.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think I may say that we are gratified by the reply of the noble Lord. I know that the pinch has been severely felt, and if the noble Lord can in any way expedite the decision it will give great satisfaction. As I said on a previous occasion, the precedents of the last war have not been favourable, but I am glad that the Government have now decided to act liberally in the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow. I therefore move that, except for Judicial business, the House do adjourn until Tuesday next, March 2.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.