Sitting of 11 May 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Gas) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Halifax Corporation Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
Copy presented of the Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report for 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's certificate under Section 17 (2) of The Police Act, 1890, to the Tyne River Police Force, for the year ended 29th September, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1915 (TEMPORARY IMPORTATION OF MOTOR CARS).
Copy presented of the Motor Cars (Temporary Importation) Regulations, made by the Treasury under Section 13 (6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ITALY AND GERMANY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to any negotiations which have taken place with the object of securing from Italy her full adhesion to the policy of the Allies by a declaration of war by Italy against Germany?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The answer is in the negative.

    SERBIA.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has yet been made and, if so, what for providing relief to the starving population in Serbia?
    Sir E. GREY: The answer, I regret to say, is in the negative.

    DISTURBANCES IN CEYLON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will specify the law under which Sir Robert Chalmers allowed amnesties to be purchased for large sums of money by persons against some of whom no charge had been made and others of whom had been acquitted of charges made in connection with the disturbances in Ceylon last summer; what aggregate amount was received in this way from innocent men; and what has been done with the money?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The system of voluntary contributions in payment of compensation for damage done by rioters is fully explained in the correspondence which has been presented to Parliament. The total amount received has been or will be employed in the payment of compensation in respect of property destroyed by the rioters.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the entire Cingalese population deny that these contributions were voluntary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can anyone answer for the entire Cingalese population?
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Robert Chalmers, then Governor of Ceylon, now Under-Secretary for Ireland, authorised the arrest on the 7th June, 1915, of Mark Leo Fernando, a Catholic, aged twenty-two, the rejection of his protests of innocence of preceding disturbances, the refusal to receive evidence tendered, the refusal of any form of trial or inquiry, and the shooting of him in front of his own house on the 8th June; and under what law was this young man shot without trial after all disturbance had ceased?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to suppose that there is any truth in this allegation.
    Mr. GINNELL: How is it that the Committee of Cingalese gentlemen, some of whom are barristers and reside at present in this country, were not prosecuted for their allegations supported by oath?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I see no reason for a prosecution. The statements are simply not believed.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any inquiry has been held into the conduct of the young English clerks and other civil employés in Ceylon who last summer were suddenly and without preparation or qualification appointed as officers in control of military and volunteers for ten weeks under martial law, and in that capacity had men and women shot, outraged, and flogged without any form of trial; if there be any legal ground for that treatment of British subjects will he say
    884
    what it is; and, if Sir Robert Chalmers, now Under-Secretary for Ireland, disavows responsibility for it, what course will he or the Government take to exonerate him?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no foundation for the allegation that excesses were committed by the local forces in the suppression of disorder in Ceylon.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    PRISONERS (COMMUNICATIONS WITH RELATIVES).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will allow persons who were arrested during the rising in Ireland to communicate with their relatives; if he will cause post cards to be issued to the prisoners for this purpose without delay; if he is aware that some hundreds who had no connection with the rising were arrested and deported without trial; and if he can state when they will be recalled to take their trial?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This question has, on account of the existence of martial law, been referred to the War Office. I have no reason to believe that some hundreds who had no connection with the rising have been arrested. The course to be taken in reference to the prisoners is receiving careful consideration. I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about giving those arrested facilities for communication with their relatives. It is quite possible that this has already been done.

    CIVILIANS SHOT.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary whether he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held to inquire into the death of F. Sheehy-Skeffington, Dublin, and James M'Cartney, manager to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who with three others met his death at 27, North King Street, Dublin, during the rising in Easter week; and if he will take steps to compensate the widows for the loss they have sustained through the deaths of their husbands?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement

    885
    made by the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo. The inquiry is now being held.
    Mr. BYRNE: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the second part of the question, which asks if a sworn inquiry will be held into the death of this man, M'Cartney, and three others, and will their widows be compensated?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not in a position to make any statement at present as to compensation.
    Mr. KING: In justice to the other officers who are suspected in connection with this case, can we have the name of the officer who is under arrest?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of the name of the officer. I have no doubt it will appear in Court.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken, with a view to further proceedings, to identify the officer who ordered or the men who obeyed the order to shoot Mr. Sheehy Skeffington dead on his way to his home near Dublin on Tuesday evening, 25th April; and whether those responsible have been identified?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot at present add anything to what was stated in regard to this matter yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. GINNELL: The Prime Minister did not say whether the men as well as the officer were identified. Is that known yet?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot say.
    Mr. KING: In justice to those officers who might come under suspicion in connection with this event, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the name of this officer might not be properly given?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking the same question as that asked about a quarter of an hour ago.

    SHERWOOD FORESTERS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister the total number of men of the Sherwood Foresters who have been killed and wounded during the recent fighting in Ireland?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. It is not usual to state the
    886
    numbers of casualties of a particular regiment on particular occasions, and if I now make an exception to the rule hon. Members will, I am sure, not treat it as a precedent. Two battalions of the Sherwood Foresters were involved, and the casualties were as follows:

    Officers—

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    6

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    15

    Other ranks—

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    24

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    142

    There are also some men missing, the number of whom is not quite certain, but is probably nine.

    NUMBER OF EXECUTIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister the number of persons executed, imprisoned, and deported, respectively, in connection with the recent rebellion in Ireland; and, having regard to the anxiety of mothers, wives, and sisters not yet informed whether those belonging to them, are living or dead, how soon will an official communication be made to the immediate relatives of all in custody?
    Mr. TENNANT:

    Executed

    14

    Sentenced to death but not executed

    2

    Penal servitude

    73

    Imprisonment with hard labour

    6

    Deported

    1,706

    Included in the cases of penal servitude and imprisonment are a number in which a portion of the sentence has been remitted by orders of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Lists giving all prisoners in custody are being prepared by the General Officer Commanding in Command, Irish Command, for communication.
    Mr. MORRELL: Cannot my right hon. Friend tell me whether the list of persons executed includes the name of Mr. Skeffington?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I cannot.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question, whether any communication has been made to the relatives, and will he also say whether those deported are still in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, those deported are still in the United Kingdom.

    887
    What I stated in reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question was that lists giving the number of persons in custody are being prepared by the general officer commanding for publication, and these no doubt will be communicated to the relatives.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite clear as to the figures? The last official report published in Dublin was that twelve had been executed. How does it now come to be fourteen?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that I cannot give an explanation of that. I was not aware that the figure given in the official list was twelve.
    Mr. DILLON: Certainly; the Prime Minister stated to me yesterday that no other execution had taken place since Monday morning.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of those executed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot give the names now, but I dare say that I would be able to communicate them to the hon. Member if he desires it.
    Mr. GINNELL: We have not got the names of the fourteen.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman included Cork in the figures he has given of the executions?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes; I think it does.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 1,706 persons deported have had any trial?
    Mr. TENNANT: They have not had time to be tried.
    Mr. KING: But will they be tried?

    CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the number of civilian casualties in the recent insurrection in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will answer this question together with a question of which the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) has given me private notice. The civilian casualties reported up to 9th May, 1916, are as follows:—

    Killed

    …

    …

    180

    Wounded

    …

    …

    614

    888
    The accuracy of these figures cannot, however, be guaranteed. The police are preparing lists of killed and wounded as far as they are able, but these lists are not likely to be complete, as it is impossible to separate the insurgents from the civil population.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to which class the fifty men shot at the Royal Barracks in Dublin belonged — whether they are included in these figures?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt they are included, but I should like notice of that—if they exist.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the charges on which Mr. Eoin MacNeill, of Dublin, and Mr. Herbert Pim, of Belfast, have been arrested; where, when, and by what kind of tribunal they are to be tried; and whether they are allowed private consultation with friends or legal advisers?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman will have patience I shall be able to give him information about these two men, but he will, I am sure, recognise that it is impossible to obtain information simultaneously on so many different matters.
    Mr. GINNELL: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to give the information?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Gentleman might repeat his question in eight days.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    NAVAL RESERVISTS.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether men in the Naval Reserve will be called up for military service under the Military Service Bill, or whether they will have to await calling up for service, in the Navy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Probably my right hon. Friend has in mind not the men in the Royal Naval Reserve, but the men enrolled in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (Section Y)—the Navy groups. These men will be called up as they are required for the Naval Service, and will not be liable for Military Service.

    TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to notify the tribunals that in the view of the Government the chief officials of trade unions are engaged in work of public importance which would justify their being exempted from the operation of the Military Service Act, 1916?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): As at present advised, I do not think it necessary to issue a direction dealing specially with this matter.

    PROPORTION OF MARRIED MEN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the proportion of married men who must be enlisted in the Army under the Military Service Bill to complete the number required is less than the proportion of single men enlisted under the Military Service Act, 1916; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to increase the number of exemptions granted by the tribunals to married men or to settle which of the eligible married men are to be enlisted in the Army and which are not to be enlisted?
    Mr. LONG: It is not proposed to alter the grounds on which exemption may be claimed, nor does it seem desirable to take any measures in the direction contemplated in the question.

    FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in connection with the proposed financial assistance to be provided through the medium of the Statutory Committee to meet cases of hardship arising out of the civil liabilities of men joining the forces, he will consider representations in favour of making, so far as Wales is concerned, the local Committees under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act the authorities responsible for investigating applications for grants, in place of the Commissioners proposed to be specially appointed for this purpose?
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid this suggestion is impracticable for various reasons, among others, because the local committees under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act will not usually be constituted in time to deal with the applica-
    890
    tions. I may add that, as the Prime Minister informed the House on the 25th April, the Statutory Committee found that they could not undertake this work, and the scheme is being administered by a Special Committee set up for the purpose. My hon. Friend has written to me suggesting that the need for appointing Welsh-speaking Commissioners should be borne in mind. I can assure him that this shall be done.

    MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS AND SEAMEN.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to prevent anxiety in the mercantile marine as to the effect of the new Bill, if passed, he will ascertain and state that the War Office Circular, 5th March, 1916, issued by the Army Council, will continue in full force so that officers and seamen of the mercantile marine will not be called up for military service?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Officers and seamen of the Mercantile Marine (except stewards on passenger vessels) are entitled to exemption from military service, and the passage of the Bill will make no difference in their position.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE, APPROVED SOCIETIES (ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware of the confusion which arises in approved societies through members failing to notify their society that they have been enlisted in the Army; and whether he will approach the military authorities with a view to securing that in future all men on joining the Army should be required to produce their insurance cards and that these cards should be collected and returned to the central offices of the respective societies
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): Arrangements have been made with the Army Council under which every insured person on being called to the Colours is to be given by the military authorities a printed postcard showing his regimental particulars and the date of the beginning of his service; he is instructed to forward the postcard to his approved society or, if he is not a member of a society, to the Insurance Commissioners. He is also instructed to forward to his

    891
    society any stamped contribution card in his possession at the time of being called up.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that very considerable areas of land cannot be cultivated this year owing to the backwardness of the season and the dearth of agricultural labour; whether, having regard to the necessity of maintaining the home-grown food supply, he will direct the military representatives to refrain from objecting to the exemption of essential and irreplaceable agricultural labour from military service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I am not aware that considerable areas of land cannot be cultivated this year for the reason given in the first part of the question, though I am advised that it is probable that a good deal of land may not be cultivated as well this year as in a normal year for those reasons. In reply to the second part of the question, I can only repeat with emphasis that the Government hold that the maintenance of the highest possible output of home-grown food supplies remains a national object of a most essential nature, and that labour which is essential and irreplaceable should be retained on the land for this purpose. The military representatives and members of tribunals should be in possession of regulations and instructions which should ensure the carrying out of this policy.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that an opportunity of learning this is given to the various tribunals throughout the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that has been done.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to say whether Rendal Wyatt, a graduate of Cambridge University, was punished during his stay in the military prison at Harwich Circular Redoubt for his refusal to undertake military duties, by being placed for a certain length of time in a dark cell in irons; whether, although Wyatt was undergoing a sentence of twenty-eight days' detention, he has now been sent to France; and, if so, whether he can state what military duties he will be expected to undertake there?
    Mr. TENNANT: Rendal Wyatt was awarded forty-eight hours cells on 28th April, and seventy-two hours cells on 1st May. The cell was not dark nor was Wyatt put in irons. It is not the case, I am informed, that Wyatt was awarded a sentence of twenty-eight days' detention. He went to France on the 8th May with No. 2 Company Non-Combatant Corps. In France this company will be employed on various forms of unskilled work, but will not be employed in the firing line.
    Mr. MORRELL: Were any of the men who were sent with Wyatt members of a Non-Combatant Corps, or were they men who were sentenced to imprisonment?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is really useful work on which to occupy a graduate of Cambridge University?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the person in question was awarded to be a non-combatant by the tribunal it is quite proper to put him to non-combatant work.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps will be taken to bring back to the Colours time-expired soldiers who are ordinarily resident in Ireland?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Bill, as at present drafted, refers only to men who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether time-expired non-commissioned officers who have taken their discharge, and who will be re-enlisted under the terms of the Military Service Bill, will be reinstated in their old rank?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether time-expired men recalled to the Colours under the Military Service Bill will retain the rank held by them when they left the Service; whether each man will have choice of unit or be compelled to rejoin his former unit; whether any bounty and, if so, how much will be paid on rejoining or at the conclusion of service; and whether the previous service will count towards pension?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): These matters were dealt with fully yesterday.
    Mr. BLISSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men who have served their full time in the Army, having received non-commissioned rank at the front and received their discharge will, when they are returned to the Army under the Military Service Bill, retain their rank or have to re-enter as privates?
    Mr. TENNANT: Men will return to the Army with the non-commissioned rank which they held at the time of discharge.

    DEPOT AND RECRUITING DUTIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give an estimate as to the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men engaged in Regular depots, Territorial depots, and on recruiting duties in the country, and what proportion of them are under forty and fit for service; and whether these men can be released for service abroad and replaced by wounded men or civilians?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I cannot, I fear, give an accurate estimate of the numbers of those employed on recruiting duties, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the active and Regular officers, non-commissioned officers, and men have been relieved of recruiting duties and replaced by retired officers and non-commissioned officers unfit for service, except in special cases where the man is employed on work for which his special qualifications make it impossible that he should be replaced without detriment to the Service.

    SOUTH WALES BORDERERS (PRIVATE H. EDWARDS).
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private H. Edwards, 35811, 14th Battalion South Wales Borderers, who offered to enlist at Llanrwst on the 9th December, 1915, and held a certificate of rejection; whether he is aware that on the 17th March the man received a notice calling upon him to report himself at Wrexham, and that, in spite of his exemption certificate, he obeyed the summons, and was transferred to the South Wales Borderers at Kinmel Camp; whether he was placed
    894
    in hospital at the camp on the 3rd April, and died on the 5th April, having been on parade on one occasion only; whether an inquiry has been made into these facts; whether he is in a position to state the result, particularly with reference to the circumstances under which Private Edwards was passed as fit for military service by the medical officer at Wrexham; and whether he can give an assurance that steps have been taken with reference to medical examination which will prevent the repetition of such occurrences?
    Mr. TENNANT: When Private Edwards was called up under the Military Service Act he produced no evidence of ever having been rejected on medical grounds. He went before the medical board and was pronounced fit for general service. He was admitted to Kinmel Park Camp Hospital on 1st April, was transferred to Bangor Military Hospital, where he died of broncho-pneumonia on the 5th April. I have had the facts in this case specially reviewed from the medical point of view, and as a result I am informed that there is no evidence of Private Edwards's unfitness at the time of examination.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION (HERTFORDSHIRE).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in Hertfordshire are called upon to attend a medical board at Bedford, a journey which involves the loss of a day's work, in addition to travelling expenses; and whether the War Office will at once make arrangements for a medical board to attend one day a week or a fortnight at the chief town of each of the Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire, to obviate the loss of time and money to the men concerned?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question of placing the medical board at Bedford in a more central and accessible position is now being considered, and it is hoped to have this done at an early date. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is quite impossible, at the present time, to obtain the services of sufficient medical officers to arrange for medical boards even to visit the chief towns of the county of Hertford, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other counties with which other hon. Members are connected where it would be quite impossible to arrange for a visit by a medical board to all their chief towns.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements that men travelling long distances should be allowed to do so at a cheap rate or granted free passes?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the person concerned is called up to the Colours he receives a free warrant. If he desires, as it is natural he should, to be examined by a medical board before he is called up, in order to arrange, then he is travelling as an ordinary citizen and is not given a free warrant.
    Mr. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to grant a free pass or half fares?

    MARRIED MEN'S FURNITURE (REPOSITORIES).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that there are insufficient repositories in this country to meet the demand for storing the furniture of married men called to the Colours and that loss is entailed by a forced sale, whether he will take steps to provide sufficient accommodation?
    Mr. LONG: I think that the object which my Noble Friend has in view will be furthered by the Clause which has been inserted in the Local Government (Emergency Provisions) Bill enabling local authorities to make arrangements for the storage of furniture belonging to men called to the Colours.

    HAMMER TOES AND ACUTE RHEUMATISM.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what action he has taken, or intends to take, in regard to the complaint made in a letter addressed to him by the father of William Henry Scott, No. 27054, a soldier in the 3rd Battalion King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, stationed at North Ferriby, Hull, who attested on the 10th December, 1915, and was rejected on account of hammer toes and acute rheumatism, and who afterwards received a copy of Army Form W3,195, whereupon he took his rejection paper and showed it to the Army officer from whom he had received Army Form W3,195, who tore the rejection paper up and said it was no use, and passed him into the Army, with the result that he collapsed during a route march, since when one of his toes has been amputated, one hammer toe still remaining?
    Mr. TENNANT: In view of my appeal yesterday, I would ask my hon. Friend whether he desires me to call for a report on this individual case.
    Mr. JOWETT: I do, Sir.

    RIGHT OF APPEAL.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to ensure that married men who voluntarily attest during the month between the passing of the Military Service Bill and the appointed date thereunder shall have in all respects the same rights and privileges in relation to appeals to local tribunals as will be enjoyed by men coming under the operation of such Bill?
    Mr. TENNANT: All men who voluntarily attest whilst the groups are open have the right to appeal to the tribunals up to within ten days after the date of the Proclamation calling up their groups, or to within ten days after the date of attestation if their groups have already been called up.

    ATTESTED MARRIED MEN (GROUPS 35 TO 41).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Groups 35 to 41 of attested married men are officially called up for the 29th instant; whether such call was made in the expectation that the Military Service Bill, now withdrawn, which did not include un-attested married men, would become law; whether, since that Bill has been withdrawn and all married men are, under the Bill now before the House, to become liable, Groups 35 to 41 will come in their order; whether this will be later than the date of calling up very large numbers of the married men; and whether it is proposed, nevertheless, to call first upon these, who behaved best and came forward before they were under any legal obligation in this behalf, or whether all the married men will now be placed upon the same footing in all respects?
    Mr. TENNANT: Military requirements necessitate the calling up of these groups and it is impossible to defer the calling of them up until the Military Service Bill now before Parliament has received the Royal Assent.
    Sir J. D. REES: Since men attested under Lord Derby's scheme have received no training hitherto, will it not be possible to put all on the same footing?
    Mr. TENNANT: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the men coming in under the Bill are to be given a month's notice.

    RATION ALLOWANCE.
    Major WHELERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as the majority of men who attest under the Derby scheme are able to do so without the loss of a day's wages, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the payment of the 1s. 7d. ration allowance paid to each man on attestation at the same time as he receives the 1s. Army pay for the day?
    Mr. FORSTER: Gladly as I should welcome any saving compatible with fair treatment of the men, I do not see my way to accept this suggestion. To stop the allowance in all cases would produce many well-founded complaints, and to inquire into the circumstances of each case would be impracticable.

    MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that after the passing of the Military Service Act, 1916, James Moran, of No. 10, Thorngate Road, Paddington, presented himself at three different recruiting centres and, after medical examination, was rejected as unfit at each centre; if he is aware that Moran then filed a claim for exemption on the ground of physical infirmity, and on the ground that he was the sole support of a widowed mother who is herself blind; if he is aware that Moran has been suffering from disease of the eyes for many years, and under continuous treatment for the same, and that he is the sole support of a blind mother; and will he say what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. LONG: I have had inquiry made respecting this case and have been in communication with the hon. Member upon it. The tribunal appear to have considered that the separation allowance to which the man's mother in Ireland would be entitled would prevent the case being one of serious hardship. The man has been passed by a medical board as fit for military service.

    CITY LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked whether there are now nearly 23,000 cases in the
    898
    list for hearing in the City Local Tribunal; and, if so, how long it is estimated that it will take to dispose of these cases?
    Mr. LONG: The number stated in the question appears to be the total number of applications received from attested and unattested men since the tribunal started work. Of that total considerably more than half have already been dealt with; the remainder are being dealt with at the rate of over 2,000 per week, and arrangements are being made whereby cases will be dealt with even more rapidly. I think that the thanks of the country are due to the City Tribunal for the diligent manner in which they are dealing with the numerous and difficult cases which come before them.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ARMOURED-CAR DIVISION.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers and men who served in the Armoured Car Division, which was a part of the Royal Navy Air Service and remained in that service after the division was disbanded, have been informed that seniority in the Air Service will only count from the date of the disbandment of the Armoured Car Division; and, if so, whether he can see his way to reconsider a decision which inflicts hardships on officers and men who have gone through arduous and dangerous service in Gallipoli and in France?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The suggestion in the question is not correct as regards officers, who do count their Armoured Car time. The men, however, were receiving such high rates of pay as drivers in the Armoured Car Division that there was no justification for giving them the same rate of pay in the Air Service proper. They were, therefore, given their choice of taking their discharge, going to the Army, or accepting such rates of pay in the Air Service as their qualifications entitled them to. It is, therefore, considered justifiable that these men should be considered as having made a fresh start and their seniority has been reckoned accordingly. This will not interfere with their prospects as they are only entered for the period of the War, and, in the circumstances of the case, seniority cannot play such a part in determining promotions as it must do in the permanent service.

    ENEMY RAIDS.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and, if so, what arrangements exist for giving notice to local civil authorities of the approach of hostile air craft?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; arrangements for distributing the necessary warnings to local civil authorities have been framed by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces, with the co-operation of the General Post Office and the Police.

    AEROPLANE DOPE SUPPLY.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent fatalities which have occurred from the use of dope in aircraft works, he is aware that private makes of dope free from the poisonous spirit known as tetrachlorethane, and which are claimed to be entirely non-poisonous, are freely advertised and may presumably be obtained in considerable quantities; and whether the Home Department is prepared to recommend aircraft manufacturers to use these private makes of non-poisonous dope in the meanwhile?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Brace): The Home Office has been in constant communication with the Departments concerned, and I understand that the arrangements which were set on foot some time ago for securing an adequate supply of a satisfactory dope free from tetrachlorethane are now approaching completion. It is hoped that the approved dope will shortly be manufactured in such quantities as to meet all requirements. The use of any other non-poisonous dope must depend on its suitability for aircraft purposes, and this is a matter for the War Office and Admiralty to decide.

    AIR SERVICES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister which members of the Judicial Committee on the Air Services are possessed of technical knowledge of aeronautics; and whether he will appoint to that Committee a sufficient number of men of aeronautical experience as will give public confidence in the findings of the Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is or is not his intention to have an aeronautical expert to deal with what is purely and aeronautical matter?
    Mr. BILLINGasked when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the composition of the Judicial Committee set up to inquire into the Air Services?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I have no reason to think there is any general desire for such a discussion.
    Mr. BILLING: I wish to answer that, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to answer. He can only ask a question.
    Mr. BILLINGasked why, in view of the fact that the criticisms and allegations of the Member for East Herts applied equally to the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps, the terms of reference of the Judicial Committee are limited to the Royal Flying Corps; and will the Government so amend the terms of reference as to include the entire service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have read the speech of my right hon. Friend in which he promised to ask for a judicial inquiry. It is clear that this inquiry was to be made into the relation between the casualties in the Royal Flying Corps and the character of the machines with which the Army pilots had been provided. The charges of murder were made against the Army, not the Navy. In any case, after consulting the First Lord of the Admiralty, I do not propose to extend the scope of the judicial investigation.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the whole question of the Committee of Inquiry on the first opportunity on the adjournment of the House.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY (ENGINE DESIGN).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Aircraft Factory have placed orders for 2,500 engines of their own design; whether, since first placing the orders, over 500 alterations in the drawings have been

    901
    issued to the manufacturers; whether this design is based upon the successful Renault engine; whether the alterations or alleged improvements have resulted in a wholly inefficient engine; whether the order for 2,500 of these engines was placed before the engine had been proved efficient; whether this large order has deprived other constructors of necessary material; whether, owing to unskilful design, the engine is peculiarly liable to catch fire in the air and so to jeopardise the life of the pilot: whether the Aircraft Inspection Department of the Royal Flying Corps have protested against the employment of this engine; and, if not, whether he will call for a Report on the subject and, if that Report confirms the allegations in this question, will the War Office give orders to stop the construction?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Royal Aircraft Factory does not place orders for engines. There are three different types of engines which have been designed at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and orders for these have been placed by the Directorate of Military Aeronautics. One of these resembles the Renault engine. During the development of these engines many alterations were made in drawings and specifications. Material available for engines must of course be shared between different constructors. The remaining allegations in the question are devoid of foundation.

  EAST COAST TOWNS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received communications from the Mablethorpe Urban District Council and from other local authorities on the East Coast calling attention to the positions in which many of these places find themselves owing to the War; and whether he will consider favourably some scheme of financial assistance to enable them to escape ruin?
  Mr. LONG: Representations have been made to me by a committee, acting on behalf of the East Coast towns, and also by the local authorities of some of the towns. I am awaiting a communication from the committee as to the assistance which they think it needed, and upon its receipt the matter will have my careful consideration.

  PRIZE MONEY (ROYAL NAVY).
  Mr. GRETTONasked if any prize money has been paid during the present War to the officers and crew of any of His Majesty's ships; and what are the general arrangements as to prize money in the Navy at the present time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No prize money has yet been paid, and it has been stated in reply to previous questions that it is not considered practicable for any distribution to be made until after the War. The intention to substitute for the old practice of payment to the actual captors a new system of pooling prize proceeds for more general distribution throughout the Fleet was notified in Order in Council of 28th August, 1914.
  Mr. GRETTON: If no prize money has been paid, are we to understand that it is not considered practicable to have any distribution made until the end of the War?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Prize money, I imagine, has never been paid out during the course of a war. On that point I am subject to correction. It is quite impossible to pay prize money on the pooling system until the end of the War, when all the proceeds are in the pool.
  Sir E. CARSON: Has any scheme been drafted and published so as to show the men what proportion they will get?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is to be such a scheme to authorise bounties, but there is no scheme so far, because we have not advanced to that stage.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the men who have been discharged from the Navy for various reasons receive their portion of the prize money when the distribution takes place?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Obviously all those matters will be carefully considered.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether prize money earned before the commencement of the War has yet been paid?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That was not prize money. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to gratuities earned in Indian waters; that is another matter. If he will put a question down I will tell him how far that has gone.

  BRITISH AND NEUTRAL VESSELS TORPEDOED.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the German Government is reported as stating in its recent note to the United States Government that the German naval forces receive orders that merchant vessels, both within and without the area declared as a naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives unless the ship attempts to escape or offer resistance, His Majesty's Government has any objection to publishing a list of British and neutral ships torpedoed without warning and without their attempting to escape or offer resistance between 7th May, 1915, when the "Lusitania" was sunk, and the present time; and whether such particulars have been communicated to the British Embassy at Washington?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of unarmed British merchant vessels which have been torpedoed without warning between the 7th May, 1915, and the 10th May, 1916, is thirty-seven. The number of neutral merchant vessels torpedoed without warning between the same dates is, according to the evidence available, twenty-two. I understand that these particulars are known to the United States Government. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, issue lists, giving the names of the vessels, with the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[See Written Answers.]

  COALING AT DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the National Union of Gas workers and General Labourers sent a communication in February to Mr. Oliver, the naval store officer at Devonport Dockyard, on behalf of the coaling gang, complaining of dangers the workmen are subjected to in the route they have to take to reach their place of employment; if he is aware that the naval store officer stated that he was unable to do more to safeguard the men; and whether, in view of repeated complaints, he will order some arrangements to be made to remove the danger?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that stevedores at work on ships discharging cargo in the stream have to proceed from
  904
  the wharfside down an ordinary ladder resting on a lighter at an angle, in order to get on board the tug conveying them to their ships. As these men have to climb up and down ships' sides by means of a Jacob's ladder, and up and down straight ladders fixed in holds of the ships, I really think the risk run adds little, if anything, to that to which they are thoroughly accustomed. The matter was fully gone into some time ago, and the conclusion arrived at was that no change-of route could be made without detriment and additional risk. No further complaint has been since received.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKERS' RAILWAY TICKETS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the privilege of munition workers' railway tickets is granted only to men working in controlled establishments and not to those employed in uncontrolled establishments; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that munition workers in uncontrolled establishments are engaged in the same necessary work and are subject to the same restrictions under the Munitions of War Acts as those employed in controlled establishments, he will take steps to concede the privilege to all munition workers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The conditions under which these tickets are issued are determined by the Railway Executive Committee. I understand that it is considered that to extend the privilege in the manner suggested would make any limitation of it practically impossible.

    BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that there are cases of business establishments controlled by the Ministry of Munitions which have never done, and have no prospect of doing, munition work, and that the result of these proceedings is to deprive those establishments of their profits from their ordinary business without in any way forwarding munition work; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any cases such as those

    905
    referred to by the hon. Member. If he will bring any specific case to his notice, inquiry will be made into them.

    CHEMICO-EXPLOSIVE INCENDIARY BULLET.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will offer a prize of £10,000 to the inventor of a chemico-explosive incendiary bullet small enough to be fired from a gun mounted on an aeroplane and having the property of exploding within the envelope of a Zeppelin and setting fire to it?
    Dr. ADDISON: The question of perfecting the types of projectile suitable for use against Zeppelins, whether from aeroplanes or otherwise, is constantly before the Ministry of Munitions, and they have been assisted by many suggestions from inventors. There does not appear to be any occasion for offering the particular incentive suggested.
    Mr. KING: Have not prizes been offered in connection with other particularly needed inventions, and, if so, why not adopt the suggestion here?
    Dr. ADDISON: The reason is that we receive tens of thousands of suggestions.

    EMPLOYÉS AT LEEDS AND DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can state approximately the number of employed and the amount of wages paid, respectively, in the cities of Leeds and Dublin?
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

    CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have recently made orders closing for sale of intoxicating liquor certain licensed premises in England, in two cases until 5th April, 1917, and in one case absolutely; that these orders have followed the conviction of the licence-holders for offences against the Board's Regulations, for which offences adequate penalties have been imposed; that the further and much more severe penalties of closing the premises will fall upon the owners of the property
    906
    who had no part in and were quite unaware that the offences were being committed, and that the orders closing the houses have been made without notice and without any opportunity having been afforded to the owners of being heard; and whether, in these circumstances, and seeing that the question of closing the premises is one which will arise on the next annual application for renewal before the licensing justices, he will take steps to have the orders suspending the licences in question immediately withdrawn?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Central Control Board have only closed premises where such action was necessary for the proper control of the sale of intoxicating liquor. My hon. Friend will recognise that flagrant violation of Orders cannot be tolerated, but if he will give me the particulars of any case in which he thinks the action of the Control Board in closing licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor was not justified, I will inquire into the circumstances.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentle-may say whether, when the licence holder's offence has been purged by punishment, the Ministry of Munitions proceeds with a kind of Sicilian vendetta against the owner of the premises?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what the hon. Member means.

  PAPER IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of his letter of 15th March to the chairman of the Commission on Restriction of Paper Imports that contracts for the purchase or supply should be read as if the quantities therein contained were reduced by one-third, and that all who find themselves in the position to demand greatly enhanced prices should be prepared to forego their advantage in the national interest and be satisfied with such reasonable adjustments as the occasion calls for, has been generally complied with; and, if not, whether the powers of a board of arbitration will be conferred on the Commission or some other means devised to provide for a settlement in cases of dispute on an equitable basis?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I understand that the experience of the Commission is that there is a general desire throughout

  907
  the paper trades to act reasonably with regard to existing contracts. In several cases the Commission have been asked to act as arbitrators, and in every case which has been dealt with up to now a settlement has been arrived at which has been accepted by all the parties concerned. No necessity appears to have arisen for conferring greater powers on the Commission than they at present possess.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING.
  Coloned YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of vessels now under construction in the United Kingdom for foreign firms; and whether, in view of the shortage of tonnage, he will take steps to requisition all vessels built in the United Kingdom for foreign firms during the present War, and to prevent any vessel from leaving the country to sail under a neutral flag?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that forty-two vessels are under construction in the United Kingdom for foreign firms, sixteen of which are being built for firms of allied nationality. None of these can be transferred to a foreign flag without the sanction of the British Government.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Government will avoid giving sanction?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have withheld licences for the transfer of vessels to foreign countries that are not allies of ours, but in many cases licences have been granted for vessels which have been built here to go under Allied flags, providing they continue in Allied service.
  Colonel YATE: Are we to understand from that reply that licences will not be given to neutral nations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot make a definite promise, but the circumstances of the cases must apply.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: The right hon. Gentleman gave a different answer yesterday. Can he say how the discrepancy between yesterday and to-day has arisen?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any discrepancy. If the hon. Member will point out where it arises I will look into it.

  WHEAT SUPPLY.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the securing of certain reserve stocks of wheat is the only step taken or contemplated to be taken by the Government to meet the probable future food shortage in this country due to the restriction of the Home supply and the dearth of mercantile tonnage?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I could not bring within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question any description of the activities of the Government on the subject referred to which include organisation of imports, regulation of exports, regulation of transport, internal and external, regulations as to the slaughter of stock, and the organisation of the supply of fertilisers, in addition to the questions of labour and many others which are dealt with by the War Agricultural Committees. If my right hon. Friend has any suggestions with regard to what might be done and is not done I will see that they are fully considered by the proper Departments.

  RACE MEETINGS.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade how many race meetings have been permitted in Great Britain during the past year; and whether he will take the sense of the House as to their continuance?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not in a position to state the number of race meetings held in Great Britain during the past year, but, as I said in reply to the question which my right hon. Friend asked on the 9th instant, the Government decision not to object to a limited number of race meetings only applies to a small number of specified places in addition to Newmarket. It is a distinct understanding that racing at those places shall not involve any demands upon the railways, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is there any restriction in Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. So far as I know there is no restriction in Ireland. The powers which I exercise are through the position which I occupy as Chairman

  909
  of the Railway Executive Committee, and I have no functions in that capacity in Ireland.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the sense of the House as to the continuance of these race meetings?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I shall be glad to make a statement to the House on the subject if the House desires. I ought to add, in fairness to those concerned, that the Government has been bound to look upon race meetings as connected not only with sport, which is a matter of small importance in war time, but as an important part of an industry which is of military value.

  EAST COAST TOURIST TICKETS.
  Mr. T. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received communications from the Mablethorpe Urban District Council and from other local authorities on the East Coast pointing out the seriousness and distress likely to result from the withdrawal of the issue of tourist tickets from the industrial centres in the Midlands and the North to these places of resort; is he aware that by continuing the facilities granted last year it will not mean any increase in the number of trains run, all the difference made being that on certain days the trains will be full instead of half empty; and, in view of the hardship already suffered by lodging-house keepers and others owing to the War in these districts, will he consider their petition favourably and allow the railway companies to grant this concession?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received communications to the effect mentioned, and the question whether any modification could be made in the recent decision to suspend the issue of tourist tickets has been put before the Railway Executive Committee. I understand, however, that, in the present conditions of transport, it is improbable that the Committee will find it practicable to take steps in this direction.

  SHADWELL RAILWAY STATION.
  Sir WILLIAM PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the proposed closing of Shadwell Railway Station;
  910
  whether he is aware of the special hardship to Shadwell, which cannot otherwise have proper traffic facilities; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that it is proposed by the Great Eastern Railway Company to close Shadwell and certain other stations shortly. I have been informed by the company that this step has been rendered necessary owing to shortage of staff and the heavy requirements of Government traffic; but I am asking them for their observations on the point raised in my hon. Friend's question, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.
  Sir W. PEARCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the possibility of district motor bus traffic when the streets are not too narrow to allow of other facilities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will inquire into that aspect of it as well.

  NEW ZEALAND MEAT.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his present system of selling New Zealand meat at fixed prices, not market prices, acts prejudicially to the meat supply in the poorer districts of London; that small London butchers are unable to secure New Zealand lambs, which are retained by the Government agents and sold to a restricted class of customers on a basis frequetly of favouritism; that the bulk of such lambs are consumed in the West End or middle-class suburbs; that the public get no benefit through the foods being sold under market value at Smithfield; and whether he will direct that what surplus meat his Department has for sale shall be offered in the market at market prices on Free Trade principles?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have informed my hon. Friend on previous occasions, the instructions given to the Board's selling agents are that the trade in this meat should continue in the same channels as it did before the War. I am satisfied that the various sections of the trade are receiving their share of the present reduced supplies in substantially the same proportions as during peace time. The selling agents have also been instructed to keep their prices at a level which will

  911
  have a moderating effect upon the upward trend of prices, and I am of opinion that this is in the national interest.

  LIGHTING REGULATIONS.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the existing lighting restrictions in certain areas, the justices are bound to convict in every case brought before them in which a superior police officer is of opinion that the light seen outside a building is too great, although the justices themselves, having seen the light, are of a contrary opinion to that sworn to by the superior police officer?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.

  TEMPORARY POSTMEN (NEWPORT).
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the temporary postmen at Newport, Monmouthshire, were given notice on 26th April that the employment of all men performing full duties would cease on 8th May, and that short duties with pay at 14s. and 15s. per week would commence on the above date; if he is aware that nearly all the temporary postmen were ineligible for the Army; that a number of them are marreid men with families; that they have in a number of cases been doing this work for years; that this alteration is a distinct hardship to these men; whether it was done with his sanction; and, if not, whether he will restore to these men their position and pay?
  The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am making inquiry and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION (DUBLIN).
  Mr. BYRNEasked when telegraphic communication will be restored to Dublin?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Public telegraphic communication with Dublin was reopened yesterday, but at present telegrams are necessarily subject to some risk of delay or non-delivery.
  There is general telegraphic communication between England and Ireland, but
  912
  messages are necessarily subject to some risk of delay and non-delivery owing to local conditions. Communication with Dublin and places beyond Dublin was only reopened yesterday for public traffic, as previously only one wire which was in a somewhat faulty condition was available.
  Telephonic communication from England is available with Belfast and places served through Belfast, but not with Dublin or places to the south and west. Only one telephone line is working between London and Dublin, and that is required for official purposes.
  The local exchange systems in Dublin and other places in Ireland are understood to be available for the use of subscribers and the general public, subject in some cases to local restrictions necessarily imposed by the military authorities, but in these cases there are no particulars in London.

  EMPIRE DAY.
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will follow the example of other parts of the Oversea Dominions and give instructions that Empire Day, 24th May, shall be marked by a lecture on the Empire in all public schools in the country and observed as a half-holiday?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Board of Education have no authority to issue instructions of the kind indicated. I have, however, no doubt that local education authorities and school authorities will take such steps as they consider appropriate for the observance of Empire Day, and I will see that this question and answer are communicated to them.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the second year of comradeship in arms of the Forces of the Empire will on Empire Day, 24th May, be marked by flying the Union Jack on all public buildings and schoolhouses in Great Britain; and whether the Government's wish to this effect has been communicated with a view to its universal adoption?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government's approval of this suggestion has already been expressed in another place, but I am glad to take this opportunity of repeating that His Majesty's Government

  913
  will cause the Union Jack to be flown on all public buildings under their control, and hope that their example will be followed.
  Colonel CRAIG: Will that be permitted in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes.

  BARLEY AND MALT (EXPORTS).
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what quantities of barley and malt have been exported from the United Kingdom to France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Italy, respectively, during January, February, and March of the present year?
  Mr. ACLAND: The figures asked for will be given in the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[See Written Answers.]

  ARMIES IN SALONIKA, EGYPT, AND INDIA.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to satisfy the House of the absolute need of compulsorily enlisting all men of military age, he will, before the Third Reading of the Military Service Bill, state either the numbers of the Army or the proportionate strength of the Armies now serving in the United Kingdom, at Salonika, in Egypt, and in India, respectively, or alternatively, will he assure the House that the numbers in each of these theatres of war have been recently reconsidered by the General Staff and the Cabinet and that it is impossible safely to reduce these numbers in order to strengthen our Armies in France and Flanders?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have recently informed the House of the total number of divisions raised. It is undesirable for military reasons to give the distribution of these divisions to the various theatres of war. The distribution of our forces is the subject of constant consideration by the War Committee who are advised on this matter by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

  MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked whether there exists in the records of the War Office any
  914
  protest from General Townshend, either to the War Office or his superior command, against the futility of the advance upon Bagdad with less than an Army Corps of two divisions; and whether the Papers promised in connection with the Mesopotamian campaign will include all letters or memoranda from General Townshend dealing specifically with this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As some time must elapse before the Papers dealing with the expedition as a whole can be laid, it is proposed to lay Papers dealing with this special point separately, and, I hope, very soon.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of a certain weekly paper called "John Bull" in which is published what purports to be the textual communication from General Townshend, in which he states—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of this question, which does not arise.

  NATIONAL ECONOMY.
  Colonel NORTON - GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister if the Government have taken any steps to cause the various municipal bodies to curtail all public works, with a view to national economy both in men and money?
  Mr. LONG: Many steps have been taken in this direction. Circulars urging the importance of economy both in men and money have been issued. Sanction to loans except for War purposes is being refused, and in many cases works have been suspended or stopped and contracts terminated, where the nature of the work and the stage which it had reached admitted of this being done. I am glad to say that in most instances I have had the hearty co-operation of the local authorities in my efforts to this end.

  FOOD SUPPLY (CULTIVABLE AREAS).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that in one instance in Wiltshire nearly 9,000 acres have been converted into a sheep run, in consequence of which the area is almost completely depopulated, several hamlets having fallen into ruin, whether the President of the Board of

  915
  Agriculture will obtain Parliamentary powers to take over such areas and utilise them so that the Home production of foodstuffs is increased and the rural population restored to the land?
  Mr. ACLAND: I regret that in view of the general shortage of agricultural labour the matter to which my Noble Friend calls attention is not one in connection with which legislation of the kind suggested can usefully be considered at the present time.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the President of the Board is taking any steps to arrange with the President of the Local Government Board to circularise the various local bodies in England and Wales with the object of inviting them to make provision for the keeping in cultivation until their return of allotments vacated by men who have joined the Army?
  Mr. ACLAND: The President of the Board has already circularised the mayors of boroughs on this matter, and I do not think that allotment authorities generally fail to realise their responsibilities in connection with it. If, however, my noble Friend has any specific case in mind where allotments have been left uncultivated for the reason given, I shall be very glad to have it looked into at once. The Board's general information, however, is that this work is being well done.

  WAR SERVICE FOR WOMEN.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to a Circular of the Board of Trade on war service for women, in which it is stated that applicants for agricultural work should realise that the hours of work are long, that it necessitates work in the early hours of morning and on Sundays, and that a strong physique is essential, and stating that a wage of 12s. to 15s. a week may be considered an average one; and whether the President of the Board of Agriculture considers that even a woman of strong physique can maintain health and strength, working long hours seven days a week, for 12s. to 15s. a week, having regard to the present rise in the cost of living?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I may point out that the circular merely states what the average wage is, without expressing any opinion as to its adequacy as a living wage. I may, however, add that the Board has lost no opportunity of urging farmers to pay adequate wages to any women they employ, and, in view of the openings for women in other directions, there is little danger that they will accept agricultural employment at wages which are insufficient to enable them to live.

  LAND SETTLEMENT FOR SOLDIERS.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can now say when it is proposed to bring in a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Land Settlement for Soldiers and Sailors?
  Mr. ACLAND: The President of the Board hopes to introduce a Bill at a very early date.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to tax entrance tickets to entertainments promoted solely for the purpose of assisting war charities, and where the organisers themselves receive no remuneration or profit whatsoever?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The provision of the law relating to the subject matter of the question is contained in Section 1 (5) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916. The facts of any particular case which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind should be laid before the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, with whom the decision lies as to exemption from duty.

    MOTOR-CAR DUTIES.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Chancellor the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of giving a rebate to veterinary surgeons on motor cars used in their profession similar to that given to medical men?
    Mr. McKENNA: This question, together with other questions relating to the Motor-car Duty, is being duly considered.

  SERGEANTS' MESSES (WINCHESTER).
  Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the sergents' messes at Winchester are open till 11 p.m. at night, and if drink is served there until past that hour?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have asked for a report on this matter.

  MILITARY POLICE.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can give an estimate of the number of non-commissioned officers and men engaged as military police; and whether these men can be released for service abroad and replaced by wounded men or National Volunteers?
  Mr. TENNANT: The number of non-commissioned officers and men engaged as military police at home is 1,333. Of these a certain number are in training. All men fit for service overseas are being replaced by men fit for Home service only.

  GALLIPOLI PENINSULA EVACUATION (FURTHER LIST OF HONOURS).
  Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any further list of honours will be published in connection with the evacuation of the Gallipoli Peninsula; and, if so, can he say when?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is proposed to submit to His Majesty some further recommendations for rewards in connection with the operations mentioned for inclusion in an Honours List to be published in connection with His Majesty's birthday.

  WAR OFFICE PROPOSALS (WESTON GROVE, SOUTHAMPTON).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what works the War Office propose to establish at Weston Grove, Southampton; and whether their erection is to be proceeded with forthwith?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend must have been wrongly informed. It is not proposed to establish any works at Weston Grove.

  SOLDIERS' WOUNDS.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under - Secretary of State for War whether the percentage of head wounds, which he stated some months ago was 15 per cent., has now fallen; and, if so, will he say what the percentage now is?
  Mr. TENNANT: No report on this point has been rendered to the War Office, but I will obtain information.

  RECRUITING POSTERS (TEWKES-BURY ELECTION).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that recruiting posters printed and paid for out of public moneys have been mutilated and used as electioneering posters to advance the interests of Mr. W. F. Hicks-Beach, one of the candidates for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no information on this matter other than that contained in the question, but I am having inquiry made.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES.

    PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what rule or principle no pension or allowance of any sort is made to Michael M'Brearty, of Stranorlar, a man of no property or fixed income, whose eldest son, Private Frank M'Brearty, first of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, subsequently No. 5,345, 10th Division, 30th Infantry Brigade, Munster Fusiliers, who served at the Dardanelles and fell fighting the Bulgarians in Serbia on 7th December, 1915, who was then twenty years of age and who was the principal support of his father and nine younger children, their mother being dead; to what allowance does that sacrifice entitle this family; when will it be paid; and will it date from the soldier's death?
    Mr FORSTER: This claim was the subject of an appeal to the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, and there was some delay in consequence; but a separation allowance of 7s. 4d. a week has now been

    919
    granted, with arrears as from September last. The allowance at this rate will continue for 26 weeks from the date on which the soldier's death was notified to the payee. In the meantime the claim to pension or gratuity on the cessation of separation allowance will be considered.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why a pension has not been granted to Private Patrick Cunningham, No. 1618, 4th Battalion Leinster Regiment, who was discharged on the 24th April, 1916, after having contracted tuberculosis brought on by exposure and inadequate camp arrangements; and (2) if a pension will be granted to Private William Ryan, No. 2,435, 4th Battalion Leinster Regiment, who was discharged on the 13th July, 1915, having contracted rheumatism from having been compelled to sleep in camp on the bare ground in the months of October, November, and December, 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: Both these cases are being considered by the Chelsea Commissioners, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked why persons in receipt of the 3s. 6d. per week extra London separation allowance are not entitled to receive the same if they leave the London area temporarily and subsequently return to London?
    Mr. FORSTER: This allowance is given to meet the extra expense of regular residence in the London area. It is resumed on return to London after temporary absence, if the home in London was maintained during such absence.

  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. Hanson, who has returned to England after eleven months of internment in Germany, asserts that not more than 3½ ounces of meat and ½ pound of bread, composed of a mixture of inferior rye, potatoes, and straw, together with coarse vegetable roots such as are usually fed to cattle, form the daily allowance of civilian prisoners in Germany, and that the conditions of military prisoners are even worse; whether his attention has been called to Mr. Hanson's statement that he has frequently heard Mr. Gerard tell starving British prisoners that they
  920
  have their own Government to thank for their sufferings; and whether the Government have received any suggestions from Mr. Gerard as to measures that might be taken to secure better treatment for British prisoners in Germany?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): No, Sir, except by my hon. Friend's question, these statements do not appear to have been brought to our notice. I may say that we quite recently asked the United States Ambassador to inquire as to the quantity and quality of the food at present being supplied at Ruhleben. With regard to the third part of the question, no specific suggestions have been received such as are there referred to, but, as the House has been informed on several occasions, the United States Ambassador at Berlin has been indefatigable in his efforts to improve the conditions obtaining in the prisoners' camps in Germany, and we are most grateful to His Excellency for what he has done.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I ask my Noble Friend whether the information given by Mr. Hanson entirely contradicts the information recently given by the Under-Secretary of State for War, and whether he is in a position to say which is the more likely to be correct?
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not quite know to what answer my hon. Friend refers; but I should have thought that the statement in the question was a great exaggeration of the state of things in the camp.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does my Noble Friend realise that it comes from a gentleman who says that he speaks from personal experience?
  Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to say that such things never occur in the camps, but our information, generally speaking, has been that, although the food is insufficient, it is not so bad as here described.

  TEA (EXPORT TAX).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the export tax on tea, which amounts to a bounty to foreign tea-producing countries, is a strictly temporary war tax?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I am afraid that I cannot forecast future Budget arrangements.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether India will be represented at the Paris Conference; whether the question of imposing an import tax in the United Kingdom on tea from other countries of the same amount as the tax recently imposed upon tea exported from India, has been, or will be, considered by His Majesty's Government; and whether the new Indian export tax will be held to be applicable to the unshippel balance of last season's Indian tea crop?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is in the negative and to the third question in the affirmative. I have not thought it necessary to make any representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the lines suggested in the second question.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACT (RATE OF WAGES).
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Messrs. Blake and Company, of Rodney Street, Liverpool, who have secured a contract for building aeroplane sheds, are only paying the men employed on the work 9¾d. per hour, the district rate being 11d. per hour; that the men are working a fifty-three hour week, while the working week agreed to by the employers and workmen is 46½ and whether he will compel this firm to pay the standard rate or cancel the contract?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is no record of this firm having any contract under the War Department for building aeroplane sheds. If the hon. Member can give particulars of the place, and amount of the contract, it might assist in further inquiry, but it is thought that there is some mistake.
  Mr. T. WILSON: Has not this firm a contract for building hangars in sections so that they can be erected in any part of the country?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that there is no record of any contract at all.

  31ST LABOUR COMPANY, A.S.C.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that a number of the men belonging to the 31st Labour Company, Army Service Corps, now in France, enlisted to receive 3s. per day, and their at-
  922
  testation papers were marked to that effect, and they drew such remuneration for seven months; if he is aware that their pay was reduced to 1s. 8d without any reason being assigned, that idignation exists among the men at this breach of the conditions of enlistment, and that many men have refused to sign the pay books, and have had no pay since 9th December; and if he will have inquiry made into the matter and state the reason for the War Office action in reducing the pay?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will have inquiry made.

  EXAMINING AND RECEIVING DEPOT (DUBLIN).
  Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that some time since the military authorities favoured the establishment of an examining and receiving depot in Dublin as being more convenient and economical in time, labour and expense to them, he will state what has occurred to change that opinion; whether certain buildings in possession of the authorities could be made available with a moderate outlay; and whether, under these circumstances, the matter will be favourably reconsidered?
  Mr. FORSTER: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the military authorities in Ireland. In my answer of the 9th instant I was referring to those who are directly responsible for the provision of such depots as are referred to, and their opinion has undergone no change. I fear that the matter cannot be reconsidered.
  Mr. BRADY: Is it not the fact that the military authorities in Ireland recommended the establishment of this depot?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I believe that is so, but the military authorities who are responsible for its provision took a different view.

  Imperial Institute (Vivisection).
  Mr. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Institute can be lawfully used for any purposes other than those mentioned in the charter of incorporation and specified in the First Schedule of the Imperial Institute (Transfer) Act, 1902; whether a part of the institute has been

  923
  and is now used for experiments upon living animals; whether such experiments come within any one of the purposes specified in the said schedule and, if so, under which if them; and, if not, whether he will undertake that such experiments shall no longer be carried out in any part of the institute?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, as the hon. Member will see from Section 3 of the Imperial Institute (Transfer) Act, 1902. The laboratory of the University of London, the director of which holds a licence for experiments on living animals, has been situated in the Imperial Institute building for some years past.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Is this a purpose sanctioned under the Statute?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I have referred the hon. Member to the Statute.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not a question of vivisection, but of breach of trust, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether this is or is not a legitimate use of the Imperial Institute under the Statute.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these laboratories are not in the Imperial Institute, but in a building which is part of the University of London?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already informed the hon. Member of the Statute which in our opinion gives the power for this purpose. The Colonial Office has no doubt about the matter.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does it give the right to carry on these practices?

  Ex-Cabinet Ministers (Confidential Documents).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether Cabinet Ministers who become private Members are allowed when leaving office to take with them documents, or copies of documents, which continue to be of so confidential a character that the information they contain cannot be given to this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any rule or practice which would debar a Cabinet Minister from taking such a course.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the Prime Minister say whether, under the Regulations, he can secure that the papers left by the right hon. Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill) in the posession of the Attorney-General will be seized in order to prevent their being disclosed?

  Great Southern and Western Railway. Ireland (Through Rates).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland have advanced the through rates from towns on the old Waterford and Central system to Liverpool to a far greater extent than the increase in sea freightage justified; whether he is aware that the Great Western Railway Company of England refused to allow the Irish company to increase the through rates on goods passing over the system of the Great Western Railway of England; and whether he will take any steps to prevent Irish traders being mulcted in through rates by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave the hon. Member last week.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Gas Provisional Orders Bill,
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Colonial Bank Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act."
[Alexander's Restitution Bill [Lords].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Can the Prime Minister inform the House as to the course of business next week?
  Mr. GINNELL: May I put a question of which I have given private notice?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member has handed in is not one which can be put.
  Mr. GINNELL: It relates to the life of a Member of this House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have a copy of the hon. Member's question here. He asks whether the Home Office has licensed a gentleman to insult and threaten Members of this House. The Home Office has no power to licence anybody for any such purpose.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I put the question if I omit the part to which you object?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is a question which cannot be put. If it had been handed in at the Table I should have rejected it, therefore it cannot be put now. The Prime Minister.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. Do you rule that I cannot put the part of the question that is in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is none of it in order.
  Mr. GINNELL: Do you rule that members of the Travellers' Club are free to threaten and execute Members of this House? There is no martial law in this country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not rule that.
  Mr. GINNELL: That is what your ruling amounts to.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I rule that the Home Secretary has no power to licence them. The Prime Minister.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. Do you rule that the Home Secretary has not power to prevent blackguardism in Piccadilly?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have called on the Prime Minister.
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, we shall take the Report and I hope the Third Reading of the Military Service Bill.
  On Tuesday, we shall give an opportunity for the discussion on the Air Service, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks): ["That this House regrets that His Majesty's Government have not made adequate provision for a powerful Air Service, and urges that every possible step be taken to that end."]
  On Wednesday, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understood the Prime Minister to say that he hoped to take both the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Military Service Bill on Monday. That, of course, assumes that the Committee stage will be got through, to-day. The Prime Minister, I suppose, is aware of the fact that a considerable part of this Bill has been considered in. Committee after eleven o'clock at night, and if the Committee stage is to be finished to-day it means that the House will have to sit very late. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The "hear, hears" come from Members who do not sit late. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes they do" and "You do not!"] The point I want to put is this: A great many very important parts of this Bill have been very inadequately considered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"!] We shall want a reasonable time for the further Committee stage of the Bill. According to the Rules of the House the Third Reading cannot be taken on the same day as the Report stage if the House does not agree. I think, therefore, I speak the-mind of hon. Members who act with me when I say that we shall not consent to take the Third Reading and the Report stage on the same day.
  Mr. LOUGH: On that point, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he remembers that the House sat till four o'clock this morning, and that it sat very late the night before? [HON MEMBERS: "You were not here!"] I stayed as long as I could. It is, I think, almost contrary to the promise that my right hon. Friend gave, and—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a time for a speech. The right hon. Member had better ask a question, and not make a speech.
  Mr. LOUGH: Certainly, Sir. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent late sittings, he will see his way to give a little further time to this most important Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. HOGGE: I am one of those who is always willing to stay here all the time we are discussing business, but I should like to know for the general convenience what the Prime Minister proposes to take to-morrow? I notice on the Order Paper that along with the public business there is also a Notice of Motion, "That this House do sit to-morrow." I have no objection to that, but I should like to know what we are going to do.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the Committee stage of the Military Service Bill will be completed to-night. My Motion is a precautionary one, so that, if it is not completed, we may be able to take it to-morrow. As regards the point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Snow-den), it is quite true that it is not customary to take the Report and the Third Reading of a Bill on the same day without something in the nature of general consent. I hope that consent may be given.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can yet name a day for the promised Debate on the state of Ireland? Perhaps he will kindly bear in mind that the entire discussion to-day will be confined to one particular point, which is naturally the most urgent. Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the right of unfettered speech, which has already been given to the other House, is not denied to us in this House, so that the other side of the question may be heard?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible to name a day.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like Mr. Speaker, to ask, for the guidance of the House, your ruling on the question or urgent oral questions. It largely arises out of certain questions put yesterday. I need hardly say that I do not for a moment intend to question or dispute your ruling, but it does seem to me that these questions have somewhat enlarged previous decisions. Under Standing Order No. 9 it is quite clear that no question may be put, or read to the House, without the permission of Mr. Speaker,
  934
  and no question can be read to the House except it is one of an urgent character. It has hitherto been a rule of the House that a question of an urgent character must be one of a very special character, under which injury would arise to someone if it were not immediately put. Many of us in these times have sometimes wished to ask questions that we considered of an urgent character, but we have refrained because we have felt that they were not within the terms of the Standing Order. What I desire to put to you in relation to these questions —which are in the "Official Report," and which appear on the face of them—some of them, at all events—to have enlarged considerably the interpretation of the term urgent—is whether, for the guidance of myself and other Members of this House, you can give some general ruling on the point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can define the word "urgent" further than by saying that a question coming under that head would relate to such a matter as appeared to me under the circumstance of the case to be urgent. That is all the definition I can give. I must be guided very largely by the state of feeling in the House, and the circumstances of the country. I must direct my judgment accordingly. If the hon. Member inquires with reference to the questions asked yesterday by the hon. Member for East Mayo, I may say that I have looked at them again most carefully, and I certanly am of the opinion that out of the six questions put by the hon. Member five were urgent. If they had been submitted to me in writing I should certainly have allowed those five. I think there might have been some little doubt as to the question relating to Sir Roger Casement. It did not seem to me to be so strictly urgent. But the questions, I may add, were fired off with considerable rapidity, and I had not time to consider.
  Ordered, "That the Motion relating to Ireland (Continuance of Martial Law) and the other Government business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Ordered, "That the proceedings on Government business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any time though opposed."—[The. Prime Minister.]

IRELAND.

  CONTINUANCE OF MARTIAL LAW.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, "That, in the interest of peace and good government in Ireland, it is vitally important that the Government should make immediately a full statement of their intentions as to the continuance of executions in that country carried out as a result of secret military trials, and as to the continuance of martial law, military rule, and the searches and wholesale arrests now going on in various districts of the country."
  4.0 P.M.
  I drafted this Resolution with the object, if possible, of confining the discussion to the narrow though important issue of the military executions in Ireland, and the continuance and administration of martial law in that country. I will endeavour to confine my remarks to these two points. I must, of course, say that it will be necessary to make some reference to the conduct of the insurgents and the troops in order to make out my case. First of all, I desire to refer to the questions I put to the Prime Minister as a justification for the request I made for permission to move the Adjournment of the House. I asked the Prime Minister, first of all, whether he would give a pledge that the executions should stop. That he declined to give. Secondly, I asked him whether he could tell whether any executions had taken place in Ireland since Monday morning; the last we had official notification of before I left there. The reply of the Prime Minister was: "No, Sir, so far as I know, not." On Monday twelve executions had been made public. Since then, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister, I have received word that a man named Kent had been executed in Fermoy, which is the first execution that has taken place outside Dublin. The fact is one which will create a very grave shock in Ireland, because it looks like a roving commission to carry these horrible executions all over the country. This, I say, was the first execution outside the city of Dublin, in a district where there have been no serious disturbances". Now, to-day the Under-Secretary of State for War has announced to the House that fourteen men have been executed. What are we to believe? Is it any worfder that some of us have the gravest anxiety lest there should be other executions held back from the knowledge of the Prime Minister which will be brought to light from day
  936
  to day in the future. That is the comment I have to make upon the reply of the Prime Minister. Then I put, as I have been reminded, a series of questions. Although I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I committed a grave error in not submitting these questions to you before I put them, under the circumstances, perhaps, that may be pardoned. The circumstances existing in Dublin and in Ireland generally, as I hope to show, are urgent and the House may very well indulge me in having put these six questions. The next point that I raised was this:
  "Whether any prisoners in Dublin have been shot without trial or have been shot after trial, but without public announcement of their names, and, if so, how many "
  To that the Prime Minister replied that, so far as he knew, the answer was in the negative. So far as he knew, and within two minutes afterwards he stood up at that Table and admitted that three prisoners had been shot.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no. I pointedly said, so far as I knew they were not prisoners. I disclosed the whole of the information.
  Mr. DILLON: That makes it infinitely worse, because they were prisoners, as I shall prove in the course of the observations I shall have to make. They were prisoners, and were shot in cold blood in Portobello Barracks without any trial whatsoever. My point with regard to that particular answer is that the Prime Minister is being kept in the dark; he is not being informed by the military authorities in Dublin of what is going on. Later on I must deal with this case of the unfortunate shooting of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington, for which I attach no responsibility whatever to Sir John Maxwell or the higher military authorities beyond this: how did we hear in this House and the public become aware of the shooting at the Portobello Barracks? The Prime Minister was asked about it yesterday and I have his own words. He said:
  "The first intimation I had of anything of the kind I caused a telegram to be sent at once to the General Officer Commanding, and I have received this answer this morning."
  Now this is what the answer was:
  "Mr. Skeffington was shot on the morning of 26th April, without the knowledge of the military authorities. The matter is now under investigation. The officer concerned has been under arrest since 6th May."
  Mr. Skeffiington was shot on the 26th April, and the Prime Minister never heard anything about it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: You have not quoted my answer completely. I am speaking from memory, but I think the telegram sent to me was that the officer concerned was arrested on the 6th May, as soon as the military authorities were aware of what had occurred.
  Mr. DILLON: That was exactly what I was coming to, but I did not think that was really an important part of the answer. All Dublin was ringing with this affair for days. It came to our knowledge within two or three days after the shooting. And are we to be told that this is the excuse for what has occurred? A more lurid light on military law in Ireland could not possibly be imagined than that a man is to be shot in Porto-bello Barracks—it must have been known to at least 300 or 400 military men, the whole city of Dublin knew it, his poor wife was denied all knowledge of it until her husband was lying buried in the barrack yard for three or four days—and the military authorities in Dublin turn round and say they knew nothing whatever about it until the 6th of May. How on the face of these facts, which I shall explain more fully in a few moments, can we blame the population of Dublin if they believe, as they do believe, that dozens of other men have been summarily shot in the barracks? We are told in this House the military authorities know nothing about it. This would never have been known if Skeffington had not been one of the leading citizens in Dublin and his shooting became known to the populace. The military authorities did not know, and would not have known apparently, unless the whole people of Dublin knew it and it was raised in this House. Therefore, I say, the horrible rumours which are current in Dublin, and which are doing untold and indescribable mischief, maddening the population of Dublin, who were your friends and loyal allies against this insurrection last week and who are rapidly becoming embittered by the stories afloat and these executions —I say the facts of this case disclose a most serious state of things.
  Let me take the next answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him on what grounds searches are being made throughout the country and wholesale arrests in districts of Ireland that remain peaceful and loyal and which supported the Executive Government. The reply he gave was that he knew of no such things, and that if I would give
  938
  him particulars he would direct inquiries. Is that the way the country is to be governed? If I will give him particulars! That is not my business. I will give him particulars, but is it my business to give particulars of the administration of the military law in Ireland, and are we to be told by the head of the Government in this country—there being no Government in Ireland—absolutely none, except Sir John Maxwell—that he knows nothing of what Sir John Maxwell was doing, although he told us before that Sir John Maxwell was in constant comunmication with the Cabinet, and that all proceedings were submitted? At this moment, I say, you are doing everything conceivable to madden the Irish people and to spread insurrection —perhaps not insurrection, because if you disarm the country there cannot be insurrection—but to spread disaffection and bitterness from one end of the country to the other. Let me give you a few instances. The county of Limerick remained absolutely loyal. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this House to deny that the city and county of Limerick remained so loyal that my hon. Friend the Member for East Limerick (Mr. Lundon) and other leading Nationalists received telegrams of thanks from the military governor, who was sent out from Dublin, expressing his gratitude to members of our party there who held the country districts. The only stronghold of Sinn Fein there was captured by the hon. Member for East Limerick when the insurrection broke out; he took all the rifles from them, and took charge of them, and reported the matter to the military governor of the county, and the constabulary were withdrawn. [A laugh.] I do not see anything laughable in that. I think it was a fair and proper proceeding, and would have been much more widely the case if we had got any kind of fair play during the last year in dealing with these matters. In some of the parishes where the military governor was afraid of disaffection, so rapid and so effective was the action of the Nationalist party, that he telegraphed to send back the constabulary, as all was at peace, and the county and city remained absolutely quiet. On what conceivable ground of common-sense and statesmanship is Limerick to be harassed by searches from house to house and arrests of so-called suspects? If

  939
  there be a few men there who sympathised with the supporters of the Sinn Fein movement, would not any sensible statesman think he had enough to do in Dublin and the other centres where disturbance broke out without doing everything possible to raise disturbance and spread disaffection over the whole country? The same is true of Clare. Here is a county which many people might have expected would break out into revolt, and if it had it would have had serious effect. At the weekly Court at Ennis, Mr. M'Elroy, the resident magistrate, said:
  "He could not use words good enough to describe the admirable conduct of the people of Clare during the crisis. As far as he knew there had been no disturbances of any kind or sort, and he thought they should thank the National Volunteers who in Ennis, Kildysart and other places came forward and were ready to assist the police in maintaining order."
  The only reward the National Volunteers got for doing that is that military rule in Dublin is now doing everything in its power to turn people against you and us, and to turn what was a loyal district into a disloyal and a disturbed district. That has been done throughout the whole country. In Mayo, which I have the honour to represent as senior Member, it is absolutely quiet. Not a soul stirred in Mayo, and I can tell you from personal experience, now that you are moving troops in Mayo, there is not a more troublesome county in Ireland if disturbed. We kept it quiet. There was not a man moved in Mayo. The Sinn Feiners dared not move. And now the reward we get is to send down troops and proceed to make arrests all over the county, and turn our own friends into enemies of the Government. If Ireland were governed by men out of Bedlam you could not pursue a more insane policy. In Mitchelstown, in county Cork, there was no disturbance. According to my information, at an early hour of the morning a number of men were arrested and shortly afterwards discharged. I could go on, but what is the use of going on? The thing is going on all over the country, and one of the high military authorities in Dublin told me— I have no complaint to make myself of the military authorities in Dublin, so far as their countesy goes, but I complain grievously of their policy, and I think it is insanity to leave Ireland in its present condition in their hands—he told me they proposed, when they had finished with Dublin, to deal with the country; in
  940
  other words, to disturb the whole of Ireland as if we had not had enough trouble in Dublin. These are the chief criticisms I have to make upon the answers of the Prime Minister.
  I go on to say a word as to the condition of Dublin itself, and of Ireland, from the point of view of military law. But before I do so I just want to say that the primary object of my Motion is to put an absolute and a final stop to these executions. You are letting loose a river of blood, and, make no mistake about it, between two races who, after three hundred years of hatred and of strife, we had nearly succeeded in bringing together. What was said in the House of Lords last night by one of the bitterest Unionists in Ireland, and one of our most implacable enemies, Lord Midleton? [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not!"] What do I hear? Do you consider it a reproach to call a man a bitter Unionist?
  Major NEWMAN: Enemy?
  Mr. DILLON: I mean a political enemy. I do not say a personal enemy. What did he say in the House of Lords last night? I quote him because I say you could not have a greater authority. He said, after making a bitter speech against the Government and against us, that in this rebellion, for the first time in the history of Ireland, at least nine out of every ten of the population were on the side of the Government. Is that nothing? It is the first rebellion that ever took place in Ireland where you had a majority on your side. It is the fruit of our life work. We have risked our lives a hundred times to bring about this result. We are held up to odium as traitors by those men who made this rebellion, and our lives have been in danger a hundred times during the last thirty years because we have endeavoured to reconcile the two things, and now you are washing out our whole life work in a sea of blood. In my opinion, at present the government of Ireland is largely in the hands of the Dublin clubs. The Prime Minister, when I asked him a question yesterday about the government of Ireland, told me that it was in the hands of the military officers, subject to the authority of the British Cabinet. In my opinion, and I think I really am speaking on a matter that I know, the British Cabinet has much less power in Ireland to-day than the Kildare Street Club and

  941
  certain other institutions. It is they who are influencing the policy of the military authorities. What is the use of telling me, as the Prime Minister told me yesterday, that the military authorities acted in close consultation with the civil executive officers of the Irish Government? That was the answer I got to my question. Who are the civil executive officers of the Irish Government? There are none; they have all disappeared. There is no Government in Ireland except Sir John Maxwell and the Dublin clubs, and I defy the Prime Minister to tell us who are the civil officers of the Irish Government with whom the military authorities are acting in consultation. Are we to be informed that Sir Robert Chalmers is the civil officer with whom the military generals are taking careful counsel, and is he so versed in Irish affairs that he can untie the tangle that has defied every British statesman for a hundred years I Everybody in Dublin knows that before the civil officers took to flight out of Dublin the military authorities treated them with undisguised contempt, and from the day martial law was proclaimed civil government came to an absolute end.
  It is no use indulging in smooth words to cloak over the truth of the situation. We have a great deal of well-founded criticism in this House, and still more in the Press, as to the practice of the Government throwing a heavy cloak over the truth, and trying to get along with -optimistic statements blinding the public to the realities of the situation. That is what is being done in Ireland to-day, and in that respect I sympathise very deeply with the anxiety of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Wm. O'Brien) in his desire to have a general discussion on the state of Ireland as soon as we can have it, in order that we can get to grips with the realities of the situation. There is no disguising the fact that—and remember that the insurrection was confined to an infinitesimal part of Ireland—out of the whole of Ireland there were only four or five spots where there was any insurrection at all, and yet you have placed the whole of Ireland under absolute martial law, and you have swept away every trace of civil administration in the country. When we complain, what is the answer? We must rely upon the well-known high character of Sir John Maxwell, and that is the sole protection that any man in Ireland has for liberty or for any of the ordinary rights men are supposed to
  942
  enjoy in a civilised country. Talk about the well-known high character of Sir John Maxwell—I confess that I never heard of him before in my life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I am not a military man, but I knew that he was ruling Egypt, and probably that recommends him to the right hon. Gentleman. Ireland is a very much harder country to rule than Egypt, and I refuse, and the Irish people will refuse, to accept the well-known high character of Sir John Maxwell as the sole guarantee of their liberty.
  The worst of the situation is that there are many men in Dublin, I know of my own knowledge, who are going about the streets to-day openly glorying in the revolt—I mean of the old ascendancy party. What is the talk in the clubs and certain districts in Dublin? It is that this is the best thing that has ever happened in Ireland, because they say it has brought us martial law, and real government into the country, and it will put an end for ever to this rotten Nationalist party. That is the language you hear continuously in the streets of Dublin, and that is what makes the situation so terrible. Let me read to you a very significant and a very terrible extract from the chief Unionist organ in Ireland, the "Irish Times," of yesterday morning, in confirmation of what I have now said. This is an extract from a leader. The "Irish Times" is a very great journal, and it is undoubtedly the leading journal of the Unionist party in Ireland. This is what he said:
  "The demand for the curtailment of military measures comes chiefly from men and newspapers who refused to recognise the gathering of the storm. …. It would be a national calamity if the politicians, now beginning to be publicly irked by their enforced holiday, were to return prematurely to the control of Irish affairs. The country must be strengthened and re-established beyond their powers of injury. Much nonsense is likely to be written in newspapers and talked in Parliament about the restrictions of martial law in Ireland. The fact is that martial law has come as a blessing to us all. For the first time in many months Dublin and large areas in the provinces are enjoying real security of life and property."
  [Cheers.] That is rather a feeble cheer on these benches. They go on to say:
  "The men or newspapers who try to shatter that prospect will be guilty of a national crime. Strength, wisdom and tolerance will be needed for the settlement of the problems which are crowding on the heels of the recent outbreak. We have no confidence at all that these qualities exist in Dublin Castle or in the House of Commons. We know that we shall find them in a military Government in Ireland acting on its own initiative."

  943
  That is the programme we are up against in Ireland. I tell you if that programme is to be enforced in Ireland, you had better get ready 100,000 men to garrison the country. I want to know what kind of an appearance you will make in the peace conference as the champion of small nationalities with Ireland under a military despotism. I want to give a person experience, trifling indeed, and I dare say many will think it ridiculous, as to the amenities and the delights of martial law, and the effect it has on our life in Dublin. Yesterday we were supposed to be settling down enjoying the privilege and the freedom of martial law. Yesterday a son of my own, a boy of seventeen and a half years of age, went to the military officer in Dublin to get a pass to enable him to go to Kingstown. He happens to be a lad who asked my own permission to allow him to join the British Army on his seventeenth birthday, and I gave him permission to join when he was eighteen. He will never join it now, and there are tens of thousands like him in Ireland. No one who has studied in the college which he studied is wanted in the Army. He was asked his name, and the college he had studied at, and the British officer in command grossly insulted him and refused the permit. He bore a name that was suspect, and please God he will never trouble to join the British Army. He had to retire insulted from the place. I do not put that forward for a moment as a personal grievance, because it is nothing of the kind. [Laughter.] I see some hon. Members laughing, but my God, if your sons were subjected to such treatment in your own country, because, after all, it is our country, although you seem to look upon it as a kind of back garden of this country that you can trample into the dust without any consideration at all.
  Dublin is at this moment full of rumours, and is it any wonder? The horrors of that week in Dublin will never be understood by those who have not been there, as I have. Let me tell you this: If it had not been for the action of Mr. John McNeill you would be fighting still, and the rebellion would have been twice as formidable, and he is one of the men now in gaol. He broke the back of the rebellion on the very eve of it, and he kept back a very large body of men from joining. But for that, the battle would have been raging in full swing at present,
  944
  and if they had only got the telephone exchange and the Castle it might have gone on much longer. Dublin is now seething with rumours. Responsible men have come up to my house in large numbers during the last week, and said the military authorities were shooting men wholesale in the prisons after secret trials, or without trials at all. Of course, I discountenanced these rumours, and refused to believe them, but priests and all kinds of responsible people come to us and say, "You may talk as you like, bur it is going on." I did not believe it. I thought one or two cases might have occurred, but what I do say is that the population of Dublin believes it, and the circumstances of these secret military executions are horrible and shocking. Imagine in this city thirty or forty men being executed here without any knowledge whatever of the evidence upon which they are executed. It is no wonder that Dublin should be seething with rumours.
  Here are some of the facts that I know to be true, and I want to put it to the House of Commons, do you approve of this action? One of the practices going on in the barracks is that these unhappy persons, and they have taken numbers of them, are threatened with instant death in order to force them to become informers. They are given half-an-hour of life, and then put up against a wall, and several of them have given evidence against their comrades. Is that approved of by the House of Commons without any trial? Do they approve of that form of torture, because it really is torture? I believe a number have given evidence, but not many considering the great number of prisoners. For my part I think it is a scandal, and it is exasperating the people of Dublin. Was that reported to the Prime Minister, and does he approve of it? Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another case. A boy of fifteen years of age was ordered to give evidence against his commanding officer, and the boy said "I won't." "Then," said the officer, "you will be shot in half-an-hour," and the boy said," Shoot away." They blindfolded that boy and put him with his back to the wall, and made him hear the click of the rifle, and finally he was asked before he died would he answer the question, and he said "No." Then they told him to go home to his mother. Is that British justice? I call it damnable, and the British House of Commons ought to be ashamed of it.

  945
  Is it not intolerable that such things should go on, and the Prime Minister know nothing about them, and yet he says that he has the most absolute confidence in the administration of military law. Another boy of fourteen—this is a different case, and I make no complaint of it at all—was called up. The officer looked at him, and, being a kind-hearted man, he said, "What on earth am I to do with you?" The boy said to him, "Shoot me, for I have killed three of your soldiers." That may horrify you, but I declare most solemnly, and I am not ashamed to say it in the House of Commons, that I am proud of these men. They were foolish; they were misled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]
  Major NEWMAN: Now you have shown your hand.
  Mr. DILLON: Did I ever fail to show my hand in the House of Commons, or to conceal anything? I say I am proud of their courage, and, if you were not so dense and so stupid, as some of you English people are, you could have had these men fighting for you, and they are men worth having. [HON. MEMBERS: "You stopped them."] That is an infamous falsehood. I and the men who sit around me have been doing our best to bring these men into the ranks of the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask the hon. Member for Cork."] I say that we have been doing our best to bring these men into the ranks of the Army, and it is the blundering manner in which our country has been ruled which has deprived you of their services. These men require no Compulsory Service Bill to make them fight. Ours is a fighting race, and as I told you' when I was speaking before on the Military Service Bill, "It is not a Military Service Bill that you want in Ireland." If you had passed a Military Service Bill for Ireland, it would have taken 150,000 men and three months' hard fighting to have dealt with it. It is not a Military Service Bill that you want in Ireland; it is to find a way to the hearts of the Irish people, and when you do that you will find that you have got a supply of the best troops in the whole world. How can we, in the face of these facts, accept the statement of the Prime Minister, that according to the best of his knowledge no men are being secretly shot in Ireland? The fact of the matter is that what is poisoning the mind of Ire-
  946
  land, and rapidly poisoning it, is the secrecy of these trials and the continuance of these executions.
  Compare the conduct of the Government in dealing with this rebellion with; the conduct of General Botha. I say deliberately that in the whole of modern history, taking all the circumstances into account, there has been no rebellion or insurrection put down with so much blood and so much savagery as the recent insurrection in Ireland. Go back to the history of any insurrection in any modern civilised country. Take the great rebellion in America, which lasted for three years, and which had not one tithe of the excuse which these Sinn Feiners could advance. A million men lost their lives and a vast amount of property was destroyed. When the insurrection was over I do not think Abraham Lincoln executed one single man, and by that one act of clemency he did an enormous work of good for the whole of the country. Take the case of Botha in South-Africa, where he was face to face with, an unreasoning rebellion against a Nationalist Government set up by this country in a moment of great generosity and statemanship without a shadow or shred of justification—a rebellion in. which it was proved that men wearing the King's uniform had betrayed their honour and oath and had taken the money; of Germany. After the rebellion was over—it was a much more dangerous rebellion, far more, than the Irish one—if my memory serves me right, he executed one man, because, wearing the King's uniform and having taken the oath, he had taken the money of Germany. He was rightly killed, but he executed no-one else, and De Wet, who was chief of that rebellion, is now out again on his farm. Why cannot you treat Ireland as Botha treated South Africa? Where is the difference? Instead of that you have already executed, I thought it was twelve, but we are informed to-day that it is fourteen, and the imprisonments announced in all amount to something like 100. Here I. must utter a vehement protest against the language used last night by the Home Secretary (Mr. Herbert Samuel). What did he say?
  "The revolt was marked by several cold-blooded deliberate murders of policemen and soldiers, and the Government would have been guilty of unpardonable weakness if they had not meted out stern penalties to those who had been blood-guilty."

  947
  I say that is very scandalous language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Will you kindly listen why I say that? Anybody reading that language would suppose that a charge was made against insurgents, and that the men who were executed were the men who committed the murders.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member is reading from an imperfect report which appeared in last night s evening newspapers. If he will refer to the report of my speech in this morning's newspapers he will see that those sentences which he has quoted were preceded by another sentence in which I said:
  "The rebellion had resulted in the death of a considerable number of gallant young British officers and soldiers."
  And I went on to say:
  "There had also been some cold-blooded murders, and the Government would have been guilty of unpardonable weakness if they had not meted out stern penalties to those who had been blood-guilty."
  Mr. DILLON: I do not think that improves the quotation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] According to the language the Home Secretary is now using, he thinks it is the duty of the Government to revenge the death of British soldiers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mete out justice."] Some of those officers and soldiers were. Dublin men fighting their own brothers. One of the most horrible tragedies of this fighting was that brother met brother in the streets of Dublin. I asked Sir John Maxwell himself, "Have you any cause of complaint of the Dublins who had to go down and fight their own people in the streets of Dublin? Did a single man turn back and betray the uniform he wears?" He told me, "Not a man." Were any soldiers ever put to a more terrific test? I saw an account, I think it was in the "Mail," of two brothers who met in the streets of Dublin, one on each side, and there are a number of these insurgents in Dublin whose brothers are out fighting for you in the trenches and who, I say, are simply the victims of misdirected enthusiasm and leadership. I was in the middle of this; for two days I was in the power of the insurgents. The whole of that part of the city in which I lived was in the hands of the insurgents, and there were no troops. Although I could not see anything, because you had to keep to your
  948
  own house unless you wanted a bullet in your head, and I had no fancy for that, I have had a good deal of opportunity of collecting information as to what actually took place, and, according to the information that has reached me, there were isolated and very few acts of savagery and murder on the side of the insurgents, as there were also on the side of the soldiers very few. I make no complaint of the general action of the soldiers. As I say, there were some very bad actions, but as regards the main body of the insurgents, their conduct was beyond reproach as fighting men. I admit they were wrong; I know they were wrong; but they fought a clean fight, and they fought with superb bravery and skill, and no act of savagery or act against the' usual customs of war that I know of has been brought home to any leader or any organised body of insurgents. I have not heard of a single act. I may be wrong, but that is my impression.
  Just consider what was the nature of the fighting. To give you an idea how very serious it might have been I may tell you this: I am informed and I believe, that there were at no time under arms in Dublin more than 3,000 insurgents, and the extraordinary thing is that in that great city the population was on the side of the soldiers. I was, as I say, in the possession of the insurgents for two days, and as the soldiers came to me, closing in on the insurgents, they were received by the people with enthusiasm, and the people gave them food, because at one time the soldiers were nearly starving in the streets. They were on very short rations, the whole food supply of the city having broken down, and people came out and gave them food, and were rejoiced to see them. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of the population were not favourable to the insurrection, and the insurgents themselves, who had confidently calculated on a rising of the people in their support, were absolutely disappointed. They got no popular support whatever. What is happening is that thousands of people in Dublin, who ten days ago were bitterly-opposed to the whole of the Sinn Fein movement and to the rebellion, are now becoming infuriated against the Government on account of these executions, and, as I am informed by letters received this morning, that feeling is spreading throughout the, country in a most dangerous degree.

  949
  I want to deal very briefly with the case which has been so frequently referred to, the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington. It is not only a very bad case, but it bears very much upon that which I have laid stress—the prevalence of these horrible rumours in Dublin. I have here— the best thing I can do is to read it out —a very brief narrative which has been given to me by Mr. Skeffington's widow, and which I believe to be absolutely accurate. Here it is:
  "Statement on Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington's death.— On Monday afternoon and Tuesday, April 24 and 25, my husband actively interested himself in helping to repress looting in the city,"
  I may say that looting was entirely by the mob, because the rebels or insurgents were absolutely innocent of looting, and they fired on the looters more than once.
  "with some success, enlisting some voluntary helpers for the task. The names and addresses of some of these I can furnish it' necessary. On Tuesday he circulated the enclosed poster, the original of which I have, calling a meeting of citizens at 34, Westmoreland Street, at 5 p.m., on Tuesday, 25th April, for this purpose. I saw him last about 5.15 or 5.30 on that evening, and he stated that he would probably return home shortly. He was seen by two friends subsequently in the neighbourhood of Portobello Bridge, between 6.30 and 7 p.m. Mr. C. Redmond states that he spoke to him at McCarthy's (newsagent), in Richmond Street, and that he went on towards the bridge, that shortly after (about ten minutes) he saw a crowd on the bridge who saw that Sheehy-Skeffing-ion was arrested, he was unarmed and unresisting and had never used arms. He was seen removed in custody to Portobello Barracks, where he was shot that night or early next morning (Wednesday, 26th April), and buried shortly after. No priest was sent for, a chaplain being summoned only to read the funeral service. Rumours reached me that my husband was arrested and shot, but I did not receive, and I have not yet received, any definite notification of his death. On Thursday, 27th April, Mrs. Kettle (my sister, wife of an officer) and Mrs. Culhane (another sister, wife of the late J. F. Culhane) called, on advice of the Rathmines police, at Portobello Barracks to inquire about my husband. All information was refused, and they themselves were put under temporary arrest, a formal inquiry being held and they were released subsequently on producing papers of identification, etc. On Friday night, 28th April, shortly after seven, my house in 11, Grosvenor Place, Rathmines, one of -a, terrace, was surrounded by military (about sixty to 100 in number). They first shot at the window in the front without any warning and burst through same without waiting for a door to be opened. My maid, my little boy, aged nearly seven, and myself alone occupied the house. I was putting my boy to bed when the soldiers with fixed bayonets dashed down the stairs towards the kitchen. They asked my boy and me to 'hands up,' and an officer (English, the men from their accent seemed to be Belfast) had us escorted by the soldiers to the front room. We were ordered not to move. Soldiers remained in the room on guard while others were arranged outside, some on their knees in the garden and at the gate ready to fire. The soldiers remained for over three hours, leaving shortly after ten. They found no ammunition, but took away with them only documents, including German grammars and other
  950
  school text-boks of mine and papers of my husband's. … They commandeered a motor car in which were women and made them drive away with the booty while they remained a little distance away 'in case of firing,' They opened one room with my husband's key, which they must have taken from his dead body. …"
  This lady was not told, however, that her husband was dead.
  "Other locks were burst. They left a guard on the house that night. On Monday, 1st May, some soldiers again raided the house during my absence, this time, apparently, looking for Sinn Feiners, for they took nothing. They took in charge a temporary maid I had (my own maid having been too terrified to stay with me), took her in custody to the police station and kept her there until the following Saturday, 6th May, without any charge being made against her. At length through the police she was released. … I have laid these facts already before Sir John Maxwell, who has also been approached by my husband's father."
  Mrs. Skeffington begs me, in conclusion, to ask the Government and the House of Commons for a public investigation. I may read the circular which was found on Mr. Skeffington when he was arrested:
  "When there are no regular police on the streets it becomes the duty of civilians to police the streets themselves to prevent the spasmodic looting that has taken place. Civilians—men and women—who are willing to partake in this are asked to attend at W'estmoreland Chambers at five o'clock this afternoon. (Signed) F. Sheehy-Skeffington."
  That was the only incriminating document which appears to have been found upon him. I make this appeal to the Government. I do not want to embitter this matter by any charges against officers. I do not wish to mention any names, but I think the Prime Minister will readily admit that nothing but a public inquiry is demanded as a matter of elementary justice to this unhappy lady for this cruel injury which has been inflicted upon her. To tell us that there will be a court-martial, which, of course, will be secret, and that we may be sure justice will be done, is really an outrage upon every principle of fair play. We, I think, have a right, we who speak for the vast majority of the Irish people, and we do; we who have risked a great deal to win the people to your side in this great crisis of your Empire's history; we who have endeavoured, and successfully endeavoured, to secure that the Irish in America shall not go into alliance with the Germans in that country—we, I think, were entitled to be consulted before this bloody course of executions was entered upon in Ireland. God knows the result of flouting our advice, as it has been flouted in the conduct of Irish affairs ever since the Coalition Government was

  951
  formed, has not been a brilliant one. I think that in this matter we were entitled to be consulted.
  It is no doubt the programme of one section of the people to maintain that country under military government. I do most earnestly appeal to the Prime Minister to stop these executions now, absolutely and filially. I do not propose to go into the larger subject. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stop the executions. With every fresh man killed it becomes no longer a question of malice or individual sentence; it has gone beyond that. This series of executions is doing more harm than any Englishman in this House can possibly fathom. It is idle for the Prime Minister to tell me that this man or that man has still to be dealt with, and when the Home Secretary talks about murderers, I would tell the House that I was talking to one of the chief military officers in Dublin and he raised that very point. I do not come here to raise one word in defence of murder. If there be a case of cold-blooded murder, by all means try the man openly, before a court-martial if you like, but let the public know what the evidence is and prove that he is a murderer, and then do what you like with him. But it is not murderers who are being executed; it is insurgents who have fought a clean fight, a brave fight, however misguided, and it would be a damned good thing for you if your soldiers were able to put up as good a fight as did these men in Dublin—three thousand men against twenty thousand with machine-guns and artillery. [An HON. MEMBER: "Evidently you wish they had succeeded."] That is an infamous falsehood. Who is it said that? It is an abominable falsehood. I say that these men, misguided as they were, have been our bitterest enemies. They have held us up to public odium as traitors to our country because we have supported you at this moment and stood by you in this great War, and the least we are entitled to is this, that in this great effort which we have made at considerable risk—an effort such as the hon. Member who interrupted me could never have attempted—to bring the masses of the Irish people into harmony with you, in this great effort at reconciliation—I say, we were entitled to every assistance from the Members of this House and from the Government.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not surprisel— and I do not in the least complain—that my hon. Friend has taken the earliest opportunity to bring this matter before the attention of the House. Though I regret very much that in some parts of his speech—not in the whole, I admit—he seems to me to have a little forgotten some of the elementary rules of justice that ought to guide us when dealing with a situation so serious, and which all of us have a supreme desire not to embitter, but to allay, the feeling. I shall certainly, in the observations I am going to make to the House, pursue-that object with a single mind, and I hope I may appeal to the House in all its-quarters in the conduct of the Debate to-remember the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced, and the infinite mischief which, at a moment like this—which I still home, in spite of these disastrous events, will lead to something like-greater approximation of feeling and sentiment among all classes of Irishmen— to remember that infinite mischief would be done by any words spoken, or any appeal made which might obstruct or impair the chances of that most desirable consummation. My hon. Friend said, and said truly—and this is one of the satisfactory features in these deplorable-events—that in this rebellion, if it is to-be dignified by the name of rebellion, nine out of ten of the Irish people were on the side of the law. This is the first time-such a statement could be made of any serious rising in Irish history.
  5.0 P.M.
  He has spoken with legitimate pride and satisfaction of the part taken, for instance, in Limerick by the hon. Mem-for East Limerick (Mr. Lundon) in taking away the rifles from Sinn Feiners, by the efforts of the National Volunteers and national sympathisers. When he went on to complain that, notwithstanding that, there were in Limerick domiciliary visits still being paid and searches still going on for rifles—I know nothing, of course, of the local circumstances—it does not seem to me to be unreasonable, when the hon. Member for East Limerick has taken that patriotic course with such results, that there should be still ground —ample ground—for the police and military authorities to pursue that course and to see that Limerick is clear of this dangerous class of people. But when the hon. Gentleman spoke of this rebellion having been drowned in a sea of blood, let us see what are the actual facts.

  953
  I do not think it would be fair or eight, in a transaction of this kind, to measure life for life or to enter into any calculation of numbers on one side or the other, but I am obliged to point out that in the course of these three or four days the casualties suffered—the figures have already been given to the House—by the military were 521, of whom 124 were killed, and the casualties suffered by the civilian population of Dublin, which are not yet fully ascertained, were 794, of whom 180 were killed; the total being 1,315, of whom 304 were killed. Those are very serious figures. Let me add, by way of illustration, the figures which were given at Question time by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. Take the two battalions of the Sherwood Foresters—gallant English soldiers of a Territorial regiment, all of them young men in training, suddenly called out, before their time most of them, to a most unwelcome task, but at the call of duty. Of these two gallant battalions six officers were killed and fifteen wounded, and, in the other ranks, twenty-four were killed and 142 wounded. As I say, it is not a question of numbers, and it is certainly not a question of revenge or reprisals, but when you think of the households—the English households—to which these gallant young men belonged, who are bereaved of those to whom they looked forward, young men of promise to whom the future belonged—when you think of these men in the prime of their youth cut off in the discharge, as I have said, of a thankless but of an urgent duty to their country, do not let our sympathies be entirely monopolised by the unfortunate and misguided victims of this unhappy and criminal rebellion. Let us observe some sense of proportion. I speak with infinite regret, because I think it is the most deplorable and disastrous chapter in the history of Ireland, both of the losses upon the one side and of the necessary punishments that have had to be inflicted upon the other, but I cannot, when I am told by my hon. Friend that this rebellion has been drenched in a sea of blood, blind myself, nor can any fair-judging man of right principle blind himself, to the extent and gravity of the terrible, wanton, inexcusable, and unprovoked injury which has been inflicted upon both the military and the civil population. My hon. Friend referred, very naturally and properly, to the figures of the men
  954
  who had suffered the extreme penalty of the law, and he pointed out a discrepancy, which struck me at Question time to-day, between the figures which I gave yesterday and those which were given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War of to-day. I think that I said yesterday that the total number of executions had been twelve.
  Mr. DILLON: That was the figure given in Dublin on Tuesday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Well, in addition to those twelve—I will give the details in a moment—there is another, the thirteenth, of a man called Thomas Kent, who has been executed—most properly executed as everybody will admit—for murder at Fermoy.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly allow me to ask this question: Why, in the cases of allegel murder, does he not order the trials to be public, so that the public may know what is the offence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I know, this is the only case yet of an execution for murder. The discrepancy between the thirteen and the fourteen, which was the number given by my right hon. Friend at Question time, is due to the fact that this case has been counted twice. I suppose because the murder happened at Fermoy and the trial took place in Cork. Thirteen is the actual number, not fourteen. I entirely agree with the suggestion that, when charges of murder are made, it would be better that the proceedings should take place with open doors, even proceedings by court-martial. There is no reason why they should not in cases of murder. If there are any cases—I am afraid there are one or two more, but not many, I am glad to say— in which a charge of murder is preferred, instructions will be given that the court-martial shall be held in public with open doors.
  Now, let me see—I am sure my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite are anxious to judge this matter fairly—to what categories these thirteen persons; who unhappily had to suffer the extreme penalty of the law, belonged. They belonged to three categories. In the first place, there were those who signed the proclamation on behalf of the Provisional Government, and were also leaders in the actual rebellion in Dublin. Of these, five out of seven have suffered that penalty.

  955
  The second class consists of those who were in command of the rebels actually shooting down troops, police and others. Of these there were seven. The third class, those who were guilty of murder, I am happy to say up to the present moment only includes this single case of the man Kent. There are still two other persons who are under sentence of death —a sentence which has been confirmed by the General—both of whom signed the Proclamation and took an active part, one of them the most active part of all, in the actual rebellion in Dublin. I do not see my way, and the Government do not see their way, to interfere with the decision of Sir John Maxwell that in these two cases the extreme penalty must be paid. If it was justifiable, as we think it was, in the case of the five other persons who signed the Proclamation, it would be extremely difficult, on any ground of justice or of fairness, to discriminate between them and these two others simply for the reason that they happen to have been tried a little later in point of date.
  Sir W. BYLES: Except that you have certainly done enough already.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We must agree that this is a horrible business. My hon Friend cannot think it is any satisfaction to me or my colleagues not to spare a man's life. It is one of the most painful duties that can possibly be cast on any human being to be responsible for the death of another. I cannot—I tell the House fairly and frankly—reconcile it with my conscience or my judgment, believing as I do that the five other sentences were properly given and properly carried out, simply because we have reached this stage in point of time and numbers, that a differential or preferential treatment should be accoided to men equally or even more guilty. That, I am glad to think and believe, completes the tale. So far as I know, so far as the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief knows, there will be no reason to resort to this extreme penalty in any other case, unless it be a case which everybody admits deserves the penalty—the case of proved murder, actual murder, which in untroubled times would involve the penalty of death, and as to which I am quite prepared to agree it is desirable that the trials should take place in open court with all the conditions of publicity.
  956
  Those are the actual facts with regard to the death penalties. I agree, so far as my knowledge goes, with what my hon. Friend said just now, that these insurgents, mad as was their adventure, terrible as is the responsibility of those who led them on—mind you, it is only those who have led them on to whom these severe penalties have been applied—
  Mr. DILLON: No.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given you the cases. I have shown you all the categories to which they belonged. It is only those who led them on and who were responsiblc for all this terrible havoc, suffering and bloodshed, upon whom the-extreme penalty of the law has been, or will be, inflicted. I agree as regards the-great body of the insurgents that they did not resort to outrage. They fought very bravely. They conducted themselves, as far as our knowledge goes, with humanity; indeed, their conduct contrasts — and contrasts very much to^ their advantage—with that of some of the so-called civilised enemies with whom we are fighting in the field. That tribute I gladly make, and I am sure the House will gladly make it. As regards the rank and file—the dupes, many of them very young men, even lads, who were misled—almost unconsciously,. I believe, because a good many of them did not know what they were doing—into-this terrible business—our desire is not only that they should be treated with clemency, but that every possible opportunity should be given to them—it is a very difficult task, and a task that requires a great deal of thinking out—in the future to redeem what, in their case-and not in that of those who led them, is-a merely venial and pardonable error on their part.
  My hon. Friend dwelt at some length— although I hardly think, if he will forgive me for saying so, that it was very relevant to the general question he-raised—upon the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington, who was shot, not by the military authorities, not by anybody, as my hon. Friend admits, for whom Sir John Maxwell is in any way responsible except constructively—who was shot in circumstances which everybody must deplore. He was shot without trial, and, so far as I know, there was no case against him; in fact, I am quite prepared to take it that he was shot without trial together with, I believe, two other men.

  957
  My hon. Friend read out a long statement of a very moving kind from the widow of this man describing the circumstances of the case. May I suggest to him that that is not altogether a fair method of procedure. A statement of that kind, which reflected very severely on the subsequent conduct at her own house of British officers and soldiers, I confess I cannot believe and I do not believe. Is it fair, is it just, to read out an ex parte statement of that kind, which there has been no possibility of testing by any kind of cross-examination or rebutting evidence, and to ask the House to accept it as true? It may be true. [An HON. MEMBER: "Absolutely!"] It may be. I hope it is not, but, at any rate, it is a thing that requires examination and investigation. That examination and investigation I can assure my hon. Friend it shall have.
  Mr. DILLON: Public?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly, a public examination. Does anyone suppose that—I am sure my hon. Friend does not—that we here have any object, or that Sir John Maxwell has any object, in shielding officers and soldiers, if there be such, who have been guilty of ungentlemanly or inhuman conduct? Of course not. It is the last thing the British Army would dream of.
  Mr. DILLION: I never dreamt of such a thing. But what I pressed for was that this lady should have full public examination of the whole circumstances, with a right to have counsel to represent her, and I must add I really did not intend the House to accept that ex parte statement except for what it was worth, and I read it because I wanted to establish" my claim for a full public investigation, and I mentioned no names. I did not mention the name of the officer.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite right, and I am very glad my hon. Friend has made that explanation. I rather gathered from what he said that he wished the House to take it as a statement of the actual facts. It is a thing that ought to be inquired into in the most thorough way possible, and I am perfectly certain the officers and soldiers of the Army have no reason to fear that any investigation shall be made into their conduct, with the exception, of course—I make that very large exception—of the shooting incident. As to that, the facts so far as they are known to us show that it is quite an inexcusable act, but as the officer who is supposed to
  958
  have been concerned in it and to have been responsible for it is now sub judice and under trial it would be a most improper thing to express any opinion as to whether or not he was actually guilty.
  What remains of the case which was made by my hon. Friend—I will not say the case, but the statement he has put before the House—except the allegation that there have been a number of excessive exercises of inquisitorial powers in certain counties in Ireland in the way of visitation and arrest, as to which, of course, if he will only supply particulars the most careful inquiry shall be mader and his statement that the Government of Ireland at present is a Government without any civil restraint, subject only to military law? May I say here, because much misconception seems to prevail upon the subject, that when you proclaim, as-we have proclaimed, martial law, first in: the city and county of Dublin, then over the rest of Ireland, martial law as it is called in popular phraseology is not a term of art. Martial law means no law. It means that a state of things has beerk brought into existence, a state of rebellion, a state of war in which the maxim salus populi suprema, lex applies, and the Executive authority for the time being believes itself to be justified in suspending the ordinary course of the tribunals of the land. They have not that power except to the extent to which the emergency lasts. They cannot confer it upon themselves by Proclamation or by any other machinery known to the law. Either there does or there does not—that is a matter for the Courts to decide—exist a state of things which justifies the suspension of the ordinary law. If there does, the Courts hold that the Executive is justified. If there does not, the Courts would not hesitate to hold the contrary. Let me at the same time point out, because here again I think there is a good deal of misconception, that these sentences which have been passed by these courts-martial are not passed under martial law at all. Martial law has really nothing to do with it. They are passed under the authority of the Defence of the Realm Act by tribunals which have statutory jurisdiction, and the Executive, in carrying out these sentences, has been acting in accordance with a law passed by Parliament itself. It is important that that distinction should be clearly understood.

  959
  But while I say that, let me add that I regard, and the Government regards, the existing situation in Ireland as anomalous and in many ways highly unsatisfactory. We have the greatest confidence—I speak as the head of the Government on behalf of all my colleagues—in Sir John Maxwell. We believe that under very trying conditions, in the exercise of a very delicate and difficult jurisdiction, he has shown, as far as we can judge, discretion, depth of mind and humanity, and so far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied with the manner in which he has discharged and is discharging the exceptionally difficult duty which was confided to him. Nor is there the least intention on the part of the Government, so long as the necessity exists, to interfere with or in any way to control, 'except by such general control as the Executive Government is ultimately responsible for, Sir John Maxwell's particular -discretion. But the Civil Executive in Ireland, as my hon. Friend has not unfairly stated, through the resignation of all its principal members, has now for the time being almost ceased to exist. It is very desirable that provision should be made, and made as soon as possible, for the future. Ireland cannot continue indefinitely under the kind of administration which prevails there at this moment. Many difficult and urgent problems suggest themselves, and I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty, without delay, to go to Ireland, which I propose to do in the course of a few hours, not with any intention of superseding the Executive authority there, I need hardly say, but for the purpose of consulting at first hand with the civil and military authorities and of arriving, as I hope I may arrive after consultation with them, at some arrangement for the future which may commend itself to the general consent of Irishmen of all parties and of the House of Commons. I think it of the utmost importance, and I appeal once more to the House in that sense, at this moment after these most disturbing, disquieting events, that we should, all of us, so far as we can, forsaking past prepossessions or predilections, recognising, as we do, that notwithstanding these events the great mass of the Irish people of all parties has shown itself loyal to the Crown, determined to maintain the law, resolute to prosecute the War—we should seize the opportunity, if we can, of developing those potential sentiments of unity, good feeling
  960
  and co-operation to see if we cannot put upon one side many, if not all, the controversies of the past, and invite Ireland herself—and Ireland is a constituent member of the United Kingdom and of the Empire — to the common task which absorbs the energies and the hopes of us all.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has made what I may describe as a calm speech, which I believe will have the best effects in Ireland, and I heartily congratulate him upon it and I believe it will be heartily welcomed in Ireland. I must also say that, though there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) with which I entirely agreed, there were other portions of it which I think would have been more deftly handled by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), and I think, on the whole, if he had allowed the very important Motion which he has moved to remain in the hands of his leader, the effect on the House and on the temper of the country would have been considerably improved. In a. business like this, after all, it is our business to keep our heads. We are not here to express merely individual opinion. We are here, I might almost say, as ambassadors of a country which has no other organ for giving expression to its feelings or its wishes, and deeply as I regret the executions which have taken place, I cannot forget the fact of the rebellion, the fact that that rebellion broke out at a moment when it was evidently done in concert with Germany, and the fact also that there came a descent upon the shores of this country by way of invasion at the same time as this uprising in Ireland. I think we must balance matters. But once you have the rebellion put down and the whole thing at an end—I say it seriously—the conduct of the Government and the action of the military authorities is from our point of view mistaken, foolish, and in some respects I might almost say insane. I have sympathy in some respects with those who have had the task of dealing with Irish administration. They have been grossly misled. Some of that misleading, I am sorry to say, I attribute to some of my own countrymen, and I think if justice was meted out, ample and accurate justice, there are others besides the Sinn Feiners who might well come in for some measure of punishment. However, owing to the way in which this Motion has been drafted I cannot go into that. I cannot forget that

  961
  when I yesterday suggested that this day should be given to this Debate an attempt was at once made in other quarters to limit the discussion in such a way as to keep the House in blinkers, without knowing what the actual facts of the past six months have been. When we get an opportunity of confronting, as we shall confront, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and others, with regard to the policy they have pursued for the last five or six years, in which they have enjoyed unexampled power in Ireland, including the weekly meetings between Sir Matthew Nathan and the hon. Member for East Mayo; when we come to indict, as we shall indict, the system whereby a series of administrative acts were carried out, prejudicially, as we conceive, to our national interests, and which have greatly helped to bring about the present explosion, we who have remained at times silent will stand better in the opinion of our countrymen than those who now by explosive rhetoric try to make up for the blunders they have committed in the past.
  I come to the cases to which I would ask the attention of the Prime Minister. He has said with truth that there is no such thing as martial law. He has not added that he intends to bring in an Act of Indemnity. We are entitled to know this. An Act of Indemnity was brought in an connection with other rebellions. I do not press him for an answer upon that point mow. At all events we are entitled to know this—if he says that these proceedings are being carried on under the Defence of the Realm Act, what are the powers in the Defence of the Realm Act which enable him to carry on what are called field or camp courts-martial? Can a military man exclude counsel and solicitors for the defence by saying, "I am holding a camp court-martial," or, "I am holding a field out-martial"? If so, let the right hon. "Gentleman point out to me in the Defence of the Realm Act anything that gives that power. I believe the Prime Minister has Taeen misinformed upon that point. I now come to the case of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffing-ton. It is not the only case, but we have not brought forward cases which would horrify our population. We have not brought forward the worst facts. There are more terrible facts behind, but I am not going to mention them now, as the
  962
  right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is proceeding to Ireland, where, I have no doubt, they will be brought to his notice. I will deal with the death of Mr. Skeffing-ton, and with the deaths of two other men. One of them, Mr. Dixon, was a Scotsman. He was the editor of a little sheet, which I have never read; it was of recent publication, and I will not describe it further than saying that it was not a disloyal sheet. The other was Mr. Mclntyre, who had a paper which was an anti-Larkin paper. Mr. Skeffington was a strong Nationalist, but he had never taken up arms. He was what is called a pacifist, and did not believe in using arms. He had imperilled his life the day before his death in trying to rescue an officer. We do not bring these cases forward for the purpose merely of having the cases vindicated or exposed. I want to show what was the bearing of these three deaths on the conduct of the rebels. Two of these men were Catholics, and they were shot without seeing a priest. In the other case, the Presbyterian had not his chaplain. Word went through to the rebels that if they surrendered they would be shot without a priest. Word also went through that they would be shot without trial. Therefore, these deaths having taken place on the Tuesday, the rebellion was continued until the following Monday, largely, I believe, under the influence of the horrible injustice committed against these three men. I say that in explanation, in vindication, in palliation, if I may use the word, of some of the acts which were committed.
  The Prime Minister is also misled when he says that this act so far as Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington was concerned, was an isolated act done without the knowledge of the authorities. That is disproved by two circumstances. Having killed the man in the wrong, they then proceeded to try to justify his execution. The military came to Mrs. Skeffington's house, and to terrorise her, first fired a volley through her windows, but the man was then dead. What was the object? What was the object of seizing all books, copies and documents? And then, saddest of all, when they found nothing to excuse their blunder, they dig up out of the barrack yard, or wherever they had deposited them, the unfortunate man's remains, and without even letting his widow know they carted them off, and gave them burial in Glasnevin cemetery. So long as grass grows and water runs these things will not

  963
  be forgotten in Ireland. Let the House understand that I am not making any charge against an English officer. It will relieve Englishmen to know that he is not an Englishman. I am sorry to say he is a countryman of my own. I make that confession openly and with regret, so that the House will understand that I am not trying to raise any anti-English feeling in this business. If the case be made, as it is being made, in regard to this man that he had lost his head, that he had some excess of paroxysm, what do you say to the subsequent acts, the two visits to the widow's house, the taking up of the body without her knowledge, and the depositing of it in a Catholic cemetery? What more did he do? The partial knowledge that this man had points to political malice. There was another strong Nationalist in Dublin, Alderrfian Kelly, whose windows were broken in the rebellion. This man took a live bomb, and Alderman Kelly having wrongly put in the window a statement that his windows were broken by the military authorities, this man fired the bomb through the windows into a room where two women were sitting.
  I can well understand Englishmen saying, "This was an abominable rebellion. The Empire was in danger. Bad news came from Ireland to dishearten our soldiers at a time when Canada, Australia and the Colonies were rushing to our aid, and this news had a depressing and terrible effect." We know all that, but, on the other hand, are we not entitled to have some form of government in our country? Did not we condemn the system? Did not the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) time and again protest against allowing men to go through the streets bearing arms who were not in the King's pay or in the King's uniform. What was the reward? The one newspaper office which your great, wise, omniscient military loot and search is the office of the newspaper of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. This was preceded by a paragraph in "Reynolds's Newspaper" on the previous Sun-day, to the effect that the Government were going to take a step which would create a great sensation connected with a well-known politician. We know that there are some people who complain of the revelation of Cabinet secrets, or the discussion of the subject of Cabinet secrets. I wonder where that Cabinet
  964
  secret came from? Having searched the office of the "Cork Free Press" from top to bottom, from floor to ceiling, all they could find was one copy of the previous week's newspaper, which had been left unsold. I ask the Government, do they think that the Irish people, who are extremely well informed, do not know what is going on? I went into Dublin at the risk of my life in the middle of the rebellion to get to this house. Instantly the War Officers telegraphed to London, "Healy has been seen motoring through Dublin"—an item of war news which I have no doubt was eagerly and splendidly received by Lord Kitchener. That is the sort of absurdity that is going on, committed by men who have no perception and who have no local knowledge. I tell the House that this Irish rising has been grossly exaggerated. The hon. Member for East Mayo said there were not 3,000 men in arms. The first day there were not 1,500 men under arms. The total of the Sinn Fein volunteers throughout Ireland did not, and does not, amount to 10,000 men. The Government have their books, and I challenge them to deny that. And for the sake of a revolt of 1,500 men, which I, old as I am, would have put down with the police, what did you do? For forty-eight hours you rained shells upon the poor old city, sometimes at the rate of fifteen to twenty shells a minute, sounding like the thuds of the clods on a father's coffin to those who love that city. Your great leaders took the loopholed road insteal of taking the open road. Many of these deaths and casualties were wholly needless. And if Sir John Maxwell is the great man: that he is represented to be, all I can say is that, if I were an Englishman, I would like to have some of the rebel leaders in Flanders instead of Sir John Maxwell, because I watched this business with the closest attention, and I say that the rising was put down without military skill, without military judgment, and with a gross and wholesale and colossal loss, both of life and property.
  It is all over and done with, and I would like again to look to the future. The right hon. Gentleman is going to Ireland. Does he think that we want a fresh succession of Augustin Birrells? Does he think we want a fresh succession of some of the Viceroys we have had? I do not hesitate to say this: The right hon. Gentleman was informed, I am told, by the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr.

  965
  T. P. O'Connor) that if he made a change in his Lord Chancellor the Irish in America would rise. I will tell him that if he had made the change there would have been no rebellion, because somebody with common sense would have been assisting the Government in Dublin, and somebody who would tell them the truth. If I am challenged on that point, I can give the House the prescient view of the hon. Member for Waterford in last July as to the elements with which the Irish Government had to cope. He said in the "Freeman" of the 31st July:
  "It would be true to say that there was no such thing whatever in existence as the Sinn Fein movement"
  just as you were told that the Ulster men were drilling with wooden guns—
  "as an expression of pro-German sentiment here. What is called the Sinn Fein movement is simply the temporary cohesion of isolated cranks in various parts of the country, and it would be impossible to say exactly what their object is, or what their principles are. In fact, they have no policy and no leader and do not amount to a row of pins so far as the future of Ireland is concerned."
  That was the kind of stuff, the kind of information that the Government was getting from the responsible leader of the Irish race at home and abroad seven months before the rising.
  One word in conclusion. If you set up again this system of Castle government which we have had to put up with for the last seven years, you are only provoking fresh causes of outbreak. The Irish people are sick of the jobbery that has been carried on in Ireland for the last seven years, which, to my mind, coupled with the denunciation of the payment of Members, and then the rush into the Lobby to support the Government, largely undermined in the popular heart the belief in the effectiveness of Parliamentary action. We are sick of Dublin Castle jobbery in any case, but we are sicker of it when that jobbery is penetrated and carried on through the Member for "Waterford and his friends. Let the Government, if the Member for Waterford is to have power, which I do not grudge him, give him responsibility and office along with it. Let us have no more secret government from North Great George's Street. Secret trials are bad, but a secret system of government, in my opinion is worse, and that is what has been carried on in Ireland for the last seven years, and that is what has produced a ruined city, ruined homes, and killed and wounded men. I beg the Government to give ear to the voice of those who are as
  966
  well entitled to be heard in this House as any of my hon. Friends behind me. We represent a powerful and potent strain of Irish feeling. We are here to give expression to it. During this War we have remained silent as to the action of the Government for the past eighteen months. I can only say that if the Irish people will reflect upon what they had a right to expect in the ten years that this Government has been in office, and compare its promises with some of the performances, is it really wonderful that there should be in Dublin wild and foolish spirits who would give ear to the counsels that have brought about the calamities which every man in this House without exception, deplores?
  Mr. GINNELL: What I have to say on this occasion must necessarily differ from that to which you have listened, addressing, as I am, an assembly stained with the blood of some of my dearest friends for no crime but that of attempting to do for Ireland what you urge the Belgians to do for Belgium. I have to begin with a correction of phraseology. In all the preceding speeches this House has been bombarded with the expression Sinn Feiners. There are no such people in Ireland, and never have been, as Sinn Fein Volunteers. The Sinn Fein movement is purely a political, economic, and non-military movement. There have not been in the Irish volunteer body one per cent. of the members of the Sinn Fein body. The Sinn Fein body was and remains an economic and non-military body. The name was adopted and applied solely for the purpose of opprobrium, solely for a purpose corresponding to that which impels the people and the Press of this country to call the Germans Huns. The expression Sinn Fein Volunteers is no more correct than it would be for me to call you, Mr. Speaker, and all the English Members of this House English Huns; and if you allow that expression to be used, I shall reclaim my right to use and apply in this House the-corresponding epithet. The name was transferred as a term of opprobrium by political parties and leaders and their Press, and they alone had access to this country, and hence extended the name here into this House. The name was applied on the same principle as that on which the so-called Irish Government has been guided for some years past. It was applied be and under the authority of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), the hon. Member for East

  967
  Mayo (Mr. Dillon), the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor); all Pressmen and controllers of the Press, and what has taken place in Ireland is unquestionably the result of the advice and guidance of those four men who have left their seats rather than wait to hear the truth spoken to their faces in this House.
  6.0 P.M.
  In pursuance of that I desire to call the attention of the House, or so much of it as remains, to the fact that the shooting of those men in cold blood in Dublin was suggested publicly so long ago as last October by the hon. Member for Water-ford. On him and on his colleagues is the guilt of those innocent lives, in conjunction with the occupants of that Treasury Bench who fled when I rose. The murder of my friends is not a becoming subject for the Speaker of the House of Commons to smile at. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] In the New York "World" of last October appears an interview given to a representative of that journal in this City by the hon. Member for Waterford, who expressly, in this paper which I hold in my hand, suggests that the leaders of the Irish Volunteers ought to be shot. Here I have it in black and white, and where is the Member for Waterford to support it or deny it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] This is what he said:
  "Three or four men have been imprisoned for short terms for open pro-German declaration—"
  Which is a lie, Mr. Speaker—
  "for which in similar cases they would have been shot in Germany."
  The narrowness of this Motion, or this Resolution, now before the House was specially conceived and designed to prevent any useful or thorough examination of what has occurred in Ireland. This Debate, in effect, is a whitewashing Debate—a whitewashing of the four Members of this House I have named; but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, and those four Members, that they are too late for their whitewashing. The immediate cause of the outbreak in Dublin was not that which the House has been told, but was a deliberate plot of Dublin Castle, supported by those four Members, and by the Member for Bristol, to provoke an outbreak by exasperating
  968
  the people in issuing a secret document to the military and police in Dublin and its surroundings.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is himself aware that the topic he is now raising is not relevant to this Motion. He has just referred to the limitations of the Motion, and I must ask him to observe them.
  Mr. GINNELL: What I was about to read to the House is a secret document, an instruction, issued to the military officers, and now that the military officers are administering martial law in my unfortunate country, I should imagine that such an instruction, although issued before the outbreak and intended to provoke the outbreak, would be in order. If not, I shall not attempt to read it, but I hold it in my hand, and I maintain that it is one of the main causes in precipitating the outbreak. There are other immediate causes as to which I should think it ought to be in order to mention some of the facts. The ruined walls of Ireland were plastered with appeals to the young men of Ireland, not to remember the Irish ruins caused by English rule, but to remember the ruins of Louvain and of Ypres.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will bear in mind that we are not now dealing with the cause of the outbreak. The terms of the Motion are as to the continuance of executions and of martial law, searches, arrests, and so forth. The Resolution is specially drawn in a very limited form, and I must ask the hon. Member to observe that.
  Mr. GINNELL: The present military rule in Ireland is not so exceptional as some Members in this House appear to think. It is quite characteristic of English rule in Ireland, even in times of peace to see the Irish recruiters now getting what they have been looking for so long. A revolution or rebellion, or whatever you choose to call it, has been spoken of with horror. All revolutions and rebellions are so spoken of. Success is the one thing that commands universal approval of revolutions. Had this one been successful, those heroes whom you shot down in cold blood would have been real heroes, living and ruling the country at the present time, instead of being in their graves. Besides, the Irish people have been told within the last two years that

  969
  illegalities such as have been just indulged in at Dublin are not crimes. They have been told that by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. But the Irish Volunteers who put that opinion to the test have been shot in cold blood in order to show the world that Ireland is the one bright spot in the British Empire. At Question time the Prime Minister did not deny that last Saturday morning a number of men, estimated at about fifty, were at the Royal Barracks in Dublin, put standing with their backs to the wall, and shot dead in cold blood. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fifty?"] Fifty; the Prime Minister has not questioned it, and he has practically admitted it. They were shot in cold blood. An English officer went prancing about Dublin that afternoon boasting, "We have potted fifty of them, and nothing more will be heard of them." The remains of those fifty men, or whatever the number may have been, were carted to Glasnevin and buried in a huge pit, unidentified.
  The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) did not call for the identification of these men. His purpose here was to try to whitewash himself and his colleagues, and their chum, the Member for Bristol, and to gloze over the atrocities that have been committed in our capital city. You wanted our young men to remember the German atrocities—they prefer to remember yours in our country. You wanted our young men to remember Belgium—they prefer to remember Ireland. They remember how time and again in the past you decimated them by fire and sword, pitch-cap, and gibbet, and coffin ships. They remember those things, and it is because they remember those things that they took the action they did, prematurely I regret to say, and deeply regret; but it was because they remembered those things, because they remembered their own country instead of Belgium, that they are dead men. Hon. Members laugh, they laugh the coward laugh at men who had the courage to lay down their lives in a brave and desperate effort for the freedom of their country. That is what Englishmen gentlemen have come to. And with that state of things the Prime Minister of England professes himself perfectly satisfied. Of course he is perfectly satisfied. If there were not a man of military age in Ireland he would be still more satisfied, and so would you, Mr. Speaker, and so would the majority of Members in this House. Hence, I have no hesitation whatsoever in
  970
  declaring myself the friend, the dear friend of those dead men—the enemy, the inplacable enemy, of every Empire that swallows up and crushes to death those small nationalities, for whose independence and integrity you profess to go to war, a war which you are unable to carry through. You want to sacrifice all the manhood, not of England, but of the outlying countries —of Scotland, of Wales, of Ireland, and of your unfortunate Dependencies and Colonies. You want to wipe out the Celtic race, as the "Times" boasted sixty years ago: "The Celt has gone, gone with a vengeance." No, by God, we are here still, and before you are done with the Celt you will have something more creditable to do than laughing and making a mockery of brave men who sacrificed their lives in the noblest 'cause for which men can die or fight.
  Question put, and negatived.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
[Progress, 10th May.]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir FREDERICK BANBURY in the Chair.]

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Transfer to Reserve under Special Circumstances.)
  The Army Council may make arrangements, to take effect during the continuance of the present War, for the transfer to the Reserve of any member of the Regular Forces or for the temporary demobilisation of any member of the Territorial Force, notwithstanding anything in any Act or in the terms of his enlistment, in cases where the transfer or demobilisation appears expedient in the general interests of the country and the Army Council are satisfied that it can be effected under conditions which will render the man transferred or demobilised immediately available for service in the case of military necessity.
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): When we adjourned a short time ago, I undertook to make a statement dealing with the real effect of this Clause. We propose, under this Clause, to set up a new Army Reserve. In some quarters it has been stated that this means some dark policy

  971
  on our part by which we are going to embark upon a system of industrial compulsion. I have no hesitation in saying that this Clause has no relation whatever to industrial compulsion in any shape or form. As the Committee knows, the old Army, as it is now called, the original Army, was formed on a system which provided so many years' service with the Colours and so many years' service with the Reserve. When a soldier passed to the Reserve, he found employment in whatever form of labour he preferred, and he was, of course, during the whole of the time while he was in the Reserve as free and independent a workman as any of those with whom he was working and who were not members of the Reserve. He earned the ordinary wages of his craft. He enjoyed all rights and privileges, for instance, of trade unions, and he was in every sense of the word practically a free worker. When the New Armies were raised at the beginning of this War, they were raised for a period of three years or the duration of the War. It was not thought necessary to create a Reserve for them. With regard to the Territorials, there is for them, of course, no Reserve as there is for the old Army. Now, unhappily for us, the War has lasted a long time, and is not now approaching, so far as we can see, its completion, or, at all events, it is not within our sight. In this time a great many have gone to the Colours and become soldiers, and some of there are not fit for foreign service, either because they suffer from some slight physical defect, or because they are of an age when it is not thought desirable to send them to the front, or they may have been engaged for the greater part of their lives in an occupation which does not fit them for marching or military work of that kind.
  The War Office and the Army Council are in this difficulty: They may have in a battalion ten or a dozen or fifteen men of the kind I have described who are really not wanted now for the Army. They have been undergoing training ever since the beginning of the War, and have learned all they can of military duties, musketry, and the rest. Those, men are badly wanted in industry. There is not an industry in the country at this moment which could not do with a great deal more labour than is at its command. Those men to whom I refer are not earning their money for the country, because they are not really doing
  972
  military duty which is worth the pay they are receiving, and they cost a great deal in pay and allowances. They are all of them, the men who will be sent to this Reserve, capable of earning high wages in their various occupations, to which many of them would be very glad to go. But the Army Council is in this difficulty: They can only let these men go to industry either by discharging them from the Army altogether and thereby losing a hold on them for the future, or by lending them to various industries. That has been done to a small extent, but it is a very unsatisfactory way of meeting this difficulty. To discharge these men is to lose them for Home defence, for which they might be wanted in the event of invasion. To lend them is unsatisfactory. Although the War Office, as I think the most determined opponents of industrial compulsion will freely allow, have behaved with great tact and consideration and have really done all in their power to make those men free labourers, the fact is that those men. having been enlisted and joined the Colours, are, of course, soldiers and are liable at any moment to come under military discipline, if that seemed necessary or desirable. We want to avoid that altogether. I think there is an idea in some quarters that it is proposed to send these men in large bodies—battalions, or regiments, or companies—to do industrial work while they are soldiers. Of course, there is no intention to do anything of the kind.
  All we propose to do with this new Reserve is the same as happened with regard to the old Reserve. If the Army Council find that a man is not wanted with the Colours for military purposes, they will offer him the opportunity to go to his own occupation, his old home, or wherever he thought he could get the best employment open to him at the time. The moment he passed the Reserve he would become a free and independent workman like anybody else. The only liability resting on him would be that, in return for a small payment per day he would be liable to be recalled to the Colours in the event of some national emergency, say an invasion of this country. I hope I have now made it clear that there is nothing in this new Reserve which leads to the smallest risk of any form of industrial compulsion. It is really only creating for the New Army the same Reserve there is already under the old Army system. The advantage to the country is twofold. In

  973
  the first place, you will release men from regiments where they are not doing full work as soldiers, and you relieve the country of the cost of maintaining soldiers, they do not require, and you give to the country and to industry the immense benefit of the labour of those men and of their earnings. I am quite sure this is a proposal which ought to be supported in all quarters of the House, because, so far from its being connected in any way with industrial compulsion, it is in reality exactly the opposite. Industrial compulsion is much more likely to arise if you have to keep a man on as a soldier and use him m labour, even though you may make some private arrangement by which for the moment you cease to regard him as a soldier. These men will be independent workmen, just as any othei1 workman, and this Reserve is in no way connected with battalions such as that formed by Lord Derby, and which, I believe, is called the Dockers' Battalion. That has nothing on earth to do with this Reserve. Those men are enlisted on a totally different system. This Reserve is precisely similar to the old Reserve which formed part of the old British Army, and I am quite ready, if it is thought desirable to make it perfectly clear by the insertion of words, to accept the words standing in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax and other hon. Members, and to put them in the Bill, in order to make clear that while these men are with the Reserve they will not be amenable to military discipline.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are some people who charge the Government with carrying out a dark policy of industrial compulsion. I do not know who those people are. The charge does not apply to me. I do not believe the Government intend to carry out a policy of industrial compulsion, but it is the duty and responsibility of the Government to see that other people than private employers do not use this legislation for any policy of industrial compulsion. That is quite a different point, and I am quite sure it is one which will commend itself to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman. There is at least one member of the Government who is in favour of industrial compulsion. He has made speeches showing that he is in favour of industrial compulsion, and those speeches have been quoted so often that I am not going to refer to them at the present time. There are people who hold the view very strongly that you cannot
  974
  separate military compulsion from the danger of industrial compulsion, and that, indeed, once you state that you have power to compel a man to go into the trenches, why should you not have the power, those people ask, to compel a man to go here and there to this or that workshop, seeing that the work is as important from the point of view of the War as work in the trenches. Where does the logic come in in regard to the matter, and where can you stop?
  The policy of the Government, as I understand it, is that they desire to bring certain people back from the trenches to do more important and more valuable work in factories and workshops. That is a policy which I cannot question, resist, or dispute in any shape or form. We have not got a word to say against that policy, but we want to point out that there are certain dangers linked up with it, and the Government ought to the best of their ability to guard themselves against those dangers. For my own part, I do not know that these men need come back and form a Special Reserve. I think it would be better for the Government to make up their minds whether those men are going to be soldiers or whether they are going to be workmen. If they are going to be workmen and you are going to avoid industrial compulsion, then make them as free workmen as possible. I do not see that you are going to get very much advantage out of this Reserve. One argument put forward for it is that in certain extreme circumstances, such as the invasion of the country, these men, who have had military training, could be immediately called up for defence. Does anybody believe that that could not happen, and would not happen, whether they were members of the Reserve or not?
  Mr. LONG: That is exactly a point I want to make clear. If they are not made members of the Reserve they must be discharged from the Army altogether. There is no choice. For instance, some short time ago I brought before the notice of the Adjutant-General the names of some men who were very anxious to be released from the Colours and to go to their own homes and to resume the occupations they were in before the War. "The difficulty is this," he said. "I can spare those men provided I can recall them, as if there were an invasion I might want them. I therefore cannot discharge them." The only alternative is to send them as soldiers, and that we do not want to do. It is not

  975
  desirable at all, because if they go as soldiers they cannot help being amenable to military discipline. Therefore the only alternative is to discharge them to the Reserve. That is the only way in which you can make them free labourers and at the same time be able to recall them to the Army in case of necessity.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am not really concerned with the exact form of military organisation, but I am concerned to see how far we can guard against the danger of private employers using the special existing circumstances for the purpose of putting extra industrial pressure upon these men. There have been a number of gross cases where this has actually happened. I have a case where a firm in Manchester gave a man a leaving certificate for which he had asked. Apparently they had some quarrel with the man, and in place of giving him a clear leaving certificate, which would have enabled him to go to another firm and get employment, they wrote upon the certificate, "This man to join the Army." That is quite illegal. It is illegal under the Munitions of War Act. But these illegal things have been happening. A great many things have been done in regard to this matter which ought not to have been done at all. I know a case in Lincoln where men brought back from the Army were actually marched to the workshop where they were to work and marched away again. That has been stopped. These are gross forms of industrial compulsion which I am sure the Government would not permit to continue once they were brought to their notice. But the employers will have, with regard to these men, very considerable power of recommending the withdrawal of certificates.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite impossible!
  Mr. ANDERSON: Oh, no! I do not quite know under what circumstances these men are to be kept by the employers. I want to be assured on that point. As I understand, the men are to be brought back from the Army and given for the time being to private employers to carry on important work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. LONG: No, no! The man is no longer required for his military duties. He has nothing further to learn; he is not earning anything as a soldier; he is not earning anything for the country. He is
  976
  therefore definitely discharged to the Re-serve. He takes off his uniform and puts-on plain clothes. He goes away a perfectly free man; he goes where he likes, he works where he likes, or he need not work at all. He can do just as he likes. He can leave his employer if he likes. He can choose his own employer. He is just as free, I was going to say, as I am; but he is a great deal more free than I am, as I am tied to the House of Commons.
  Mr. ANDERSON: There are soldiers who are being brought back at present under quite different conditions; are they also to be put into the Reserve under the-same conditions? At present soldiers are being brought back through the Ministry of Munitions and put in controlled or other establishments exactly on the conditions I have mentioned. In many cases these-men are working in uniform. Therefore it is important that we should know the exact method and basis of this Reserve. I think the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is a great improvement upon what is now being done by the Minister of Munitions. Would' he not be willing to take over all these workmen who are now employed through the Ministry of Munitions and whose circumstances are certainly different from those which he mentioned? Would he not make the same rule applicable to all these-men? I think they will have more freedom under the present proposal than they have now. There is a real danger at present. I know cases where men have-found it absolutely impossible to change-their employers, because they are lent practically as soldiers to a particular employer or firm. When that happens—and we have seen it in Glasgow and other places—it is no wonder that working people begin to speak about industrial compulsion. I am not, and I have not been, charging the Government with trying to-carry out a policy of industrial compulsion, but I say that with the military policy of bringing back these men certain dangers are linked, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as anxious as anyone-that we should guard ourselves against those dangers. That is why yesterday I moved an Amendment to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman himself should" issue definite instructions and regulations, making it clear, as far as possible, that these men were used from the standpoint of national need and national safety, and that no private employer ought to take-advantage of the present circumstances; for private profit or private ends.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Anderson) is one of the leaders of the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] He is one of the leading members of the Labour party and has very grave responsibilities. His speeches are read throughout the country. The speech he has just made is really a very mischievous one. The hon. Member began—I am sure not intentionally—by completely misunderstanding the Clause under discussion. He made a speech the beginning of which he could not possibly have made by the time he got half-way through and understood what the Clause was about. That being so, I want to ask the hon. Member—because his words carry great weight—to be very careful when explaining the Bill outside the House to say what the Bill really means and not what he mistakenly thought it meant. If I might put in simple, non-legal language the meaning of this Clause, it is shortly that men are to be discharged from the Army with the liability to be called back again if the Army Council demand it. There is no other connection with the Army whatever. The Army has no control over them. The Army authorities cannot say where they are to work or fetter them in any way whatever. A man discharged to the Reserve under Clause 9 is as free as air, subject only to the liability to be called back if the Army Council want him for a definite purpose. I have always found the hon. Member a quite fair opponent, and I think he ought to be quite willing to accept that.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I do. I explained very clearly that I wanted information, because at present soldiers are being brought back as soldiers through the Ministry of Munitions, and I wanted to understand quite definitely what was the basis of this Reserve arrangement. In view of that, I do not think I deserve the long lecture which the hon. Member has given me.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not lecturing the hon. Member at all, but I want him to make it perfectly clear when he speaks outside the House that the view which he took ten minutes ago is not the right view. I think that this Clause is a very great advantage and benefit to the hon. Member's friends.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: Speaking for myself, I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will make plain in the Bill what he said just before he sat down it will satisfy all of us. I understand the Clause
  978
  to mean that these men will practically be on all fours with the men who serve so-many years with the Colours and so man;' years with the Reserve. If that be so, there is not the slightest taint of industrial compulsion in this Clause.
  Mr. HOGGE: We had a discussion on this Clause early this morning, and I hope we shall not waste too much time on it now, because it was then discussed in all its aspects. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Atterclifie Division (Mr. Anderson), but did not discover any mischief in it. I thought it a very excellent speech which all intelligent working men outside would be glad to read. But the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) thought it a-mischievous speech, and gave us an explanation of the Clause which he indicated was so simple that any child could understand it. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division will convey that childish explanation to the workers outside every time he speaks to them. They knowing the authority from whom it comes, it will carry great weight and raise my hon. Friend very high in the labour world. I do not think he has any reason, to complain of the lecture that he received from the hon. Member opposite. If the-President of the Local Government Board will deal with one point which remains, undealt with, I think the whole matter may be left. Every speaker so far has agreed that this is an infinitely better arrangement than any yet made for the withdrawal of soldiers from the Army for industrial purposes. I think the Committee will also generally agree that the larger the number of soldiers who can be withdrawn for industrial purposes agreeably to the military situation the better for the industries of the country. Under this arrangement there will be two classes, of soldiers working in the country for industrial purposes. There will be the men in this Reserve, working as free men and offering their labour freely in any market for the current rate of wages. There will also be the men who have been brought back from the Army in France and at home and who are working under special conditions and on special terms in the controlled establishments of the country. These men are entitled to draw fresh uniform as and when their old one gets destroyed in these factories. They are entitled to separation allowances if their wives are not in the town in which they are working. If they

  979
  are bachelors, they are entitled to sustenance allowance. They have also various other privileges. Does not my right hon. Friend think that that is likely to create some friction? There is the one man who has been and remains a soldier in the Keserve, and who is an absolutely free man industrially; there is the other man who has to conform to certain rules and regulations. Would it not be worth while, in consultation with the Minister of Munitions, to put all these men on the same basis? If they are all put in this Special Reserve their movements will be known and they can be mobilised for Home defence or brought back to the Army if required. If my right hon. Friend can introduce uniformity into the practice, he will be able to congratulate himself upon the fact that he has perhaps achieved a solution of this difficulty that will meet with the approval of all of us who are interested in the question.
  Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board intimated in his speech that there were certain people who were very suspicious as to the intention of the Government in regard to industrial compulsion. On the particular Clause with which we are now dealing, I never have thought, and I certainly do not now think, that anyone can believe, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that there is any danger of industrial compulsion. But it does not follow that there is no industrial compulsion in the Bill. We can talk from now till Doomsday, and it will be difficult for anyone to draft any Bill, no matter with what intention, to introduce military Conscription without dealing with the other aspect of the question. Therefore, I think the responsibility rather rests upon the Government. It is not so much what may be the intention of the Government; it is rather how the thing is to be applied afterwards. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will avail himself of the opportunity to co-ordinate the present system with that of the Ministry of Munitions. What happens in those cases is this, that there are men who have been at the front twelve, and in some cases "fifteen months, and they are brought back from the front. They are put into workshops. There are cases where the foremen treat them differently, because of the overhanging fear that they may have to go back. No one can say that the. Government is responsible. It would be absurd
  980
  to blame the Government for this. No one would be justified in doing so. That, however, does not prevent this thing being done, and it ought not to prevent us taking every opportunity to prevent it. It should be prevented in the system that is now introduced, because, clearly, the whole of the skilled mechanics that are now, unfortunately, in the Army—I mean "unfortunately" from the standpoint that they would be doing better work at home—instead of being brought back, as they are now, very often separated from their wives and families, and at additional cost to the State of separation allowances, and often put to work which is either not so congenial to them or work about which they have not so much knowledge to that in which they were previously engaged, would be differently treated. If these men were released on precisely the same terms as the people with whom we are now dealing, they would come back as free agents, and be able to go to their particular employment in their own town, and be with their own families, and, simultaneously, the State would have the advantage, if it were necessary, that they should be called upon at a later stage, owing to their training and experience, of calling them up. Therefore, whilst I presume that it would be out of order, at this stage, to deal with industrial compulsion—with which I will deal on another Clause of the Bill—I do hope that as wide publicity as is possible will be given to this particular Clause. Understanding, as I have said, that even in this Clause there is a very grave suspicion in the minds of many people that it may be used for other purposes, yet, having regard to the very clear explanation and intimation, that additional words are going to be inserted in the Bill, I think that ought to go a very long way to clear up the existing misapprehension.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I welcome this Clause above all other parts of the Bill. It is a Clause which will enable the men, who, as the President of the Local Government Board has said, are in the Army and cannot be made use of for the moment, to come back as free men to the industries which they usually serve. I do not at all think that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Atter-cliffe have not helped to initiate and get the declaration which has been given by the President of the Local Government Board on this Clause. These men, it appears, when they are not required in

  981
  their regiment for the present purposes of the War Office can be set free exactly in the same way as under the old Reserve. Those others who are employed in the Reserve, and who have served their time, should know very well that there is no restriction at all in regard to the performance of their duties in any way, except that they were called up when the War broke out. I welcome this Clause, especially with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend below me. Thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of men may be relieved and be used in the industries which they serve. It is quite clear now what it means.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am sorry I was not in Committee this morning in order to move the Amendment standing in my name, but I understand that the Government are willing to accept it on the Report stage of the Bill. Perhaps, however, there is some misapprehension?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that there was any misapprehension in the Committee. The Amendment referred to was in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, namely—
  "Provided that during such period of cismobilisation a man shall not be subject to military discipline.
  "That is the reason why the Motion is, is "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WARDLE: Then I have been misinformed. I rose with the object of trying to find out exactly where we were. I have no desire to delay the Committee, but I do, however, want to say that I should welcome it very cordially if the men that are being brought back from the Army into munitions and other work could be brought into the Special Reserve, so that we should only have one class of men out of the Army and one class of men in the Army. It is not because it is a Compulsion Bill—not that I am in love with compulsion—but because these men were brought back under the voluntary arrangement, belonging, as they did, to a voluntary Army, and were put under the Ministry of Munitions as Army men, that I now hope, when there is a Special Reserve, they will all be put into it.
  Mr. D. MASON: I agree that this Amendment will improve the Clause, but I do think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson)
  982
  was quite right in his contention that in the nature of things there must be this fear—not, perhaps, a fear, but the actual fact, and possibility of industrial compulsion existing under this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that any working man who came into this Special Reserve was as free as he was himself, apart from his obligations to the House of Commons. I do think the right hon. Gentleman, when he reflects upon that statement, will not really adhere to it?
  Mr. LONG: Absolutely!
  Mr. MASON: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that the working man is as free as himself? He knows that the working man is under this contingent liability of being called up.
  Mr. LONG: I stated that.
  Mr. MASON: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman is not liable to that, and there fore it is not really—
  Mr. LONG: I am sorry I did not make myself clear to the hon. Member. I thought what I said was clear and intelligible to everybody. What I was dealing with then was not the liability to military service. I was dealing with a question which had been raised—perhaps it has escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman—namely, the freedom of a man in regard to the selection of his employment and the settlement of wages.
  Mr. MASON: I quite appreciate that point, but the contention of my hon. Friend below me was scarcely that. No one suggests that this particular Clause is going to bring about industrial compulsion. The Clause says that the Army Council may make arrangements. There is no question that these working men do feel the pressure that has been referred to, that if the employer of a Special Reservist was not satisfied with him he might discharge him, and he might not get other employment. If he was discharged and got a character for not doing what his employer wanted, he would probably be rendered liable to be called up.
  Mr. LONG: How? Show how?
  Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member is explaining my hon. Friend's speech.
  Mr. MASON: I think it is very clear. The right hon. Gentleman asks, How? I think the fact that there is this liability is, of course, a point that the working man is probably less free than he otherwise

  983
  would be if that liability did not exist. No one is complaining of it, in view of the exigencies of the situation, but I do not think we should delude ourselves that it is non-existent. That, I think, is the argument of my hon. Friend. I hope the suggestion made by the Leader of the Labour party will receive, as I have no doubt it will, the favourable consideration of the Government.
  Mr. LONG: I hope we may now come to a decision. In this Clause the setting up of the Reserve has been accepted by those who specially represent labour in this House, and it is rather a strange commentary that the opposition to it comes from others who only opposed it because they actually torture it, like the hon. Member for Coventry—
  Mr. MASON: No, no!
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. LONG: Torture it into such a form as to make it mean something it does not mean. When I asked the hon. Member who spoke just now to show the Committee how these men incur this liability, he stopped. Wisely, because it would be impossible for him to show anything of the kind. The hon. Member apparently does not know that thousands of Army Reservists are employed in industries of all kinds, and they are then as free workmen as any other workmen in the land. They have no liability whatever except the liabilty of being recalled to the Colours. The hon. Member seemed to think that the employer might put pressure upon a man, and I asked him how. He could not answer. Why? Because the employer cannot put pressure upon a man. He cannot take the Reservist and say, "This man is not a good workman, and he must therefore go back to his regiment." There is no power to send him back. That kind of opposition really is not businesslike, but is really taking up the time of the Committee without any object whatever. There is one question which has been raised, upon which I want to say a word. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh suggested that there will be an anomaly, if this Clause passes, because you will have the Reservists on the one hand, and on the other hand the working man who is also a soldier. But while you have got the working men who are working in factories, although they are soldiers, what is the answer? It is objected to, I understand, by a good many hon. Members. But why have you got them? Because you have not
  984
  got this Clause; because you have not got a Reserve into which you can pass them. That is the answer. I do not know what arrangements the Army Council may make with the Minister of Munitions, but what I imagine they will do in future will be to pass men into the Reserve when they are required for industry. Create this reserve and the Army Council will be able to pass through it any men they choose. The responsibility will rest with them.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I was a little surprised at the words read by the Chairman just now. He spoke of "during such period of demobilisation." I think it was pointed out last night that it must be during such period of transfer or demobilisation.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was so, but it was understood the actual words might be revised on the Report stage.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915.)
  The first proviso to Section one of the Army (Transfers) Act, 1915 (which provides for the maintenance of the rate of pay of a soldier transferred to a corps not of the same arm or branch of the service as the corps in which he was serving), shall not have effect except in cases in which the Army Council direct that that proviso shall apply.
  Mr. WARDLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "not" ["shall not have effect except"].
  Mr. LONG: The change, I think, is a very small one. I do not think the practice will be materially varied by the change, but I have no objection to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "shall" ["that that proviso shall apply"], insert the word "not."—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and accordingly in that proviso there shall be added, after the words 'he shall not,' the words 'except the Army Council' otherwise directs.'"
  Mr. LONG: This would not fit, now that you have taken the other two Amendments. It has the same effect, but it is an alternative form.
  Mr. KING: I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.—(Transfer of Officers and Men of the Territorial Force.)
  (1) During the present war, notwithstanding anything in Section seven of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, the orders and regulations for the government and discipline of the Territorial Force made under that Section—

  (a) may authorise a man of the Territrial Force when belonging to one corps to be transferred without his consent to another corps, and may authorise a man of the Territorial Force to be posted without his consent to a battalion or other body of the Regular Forces included in the corps to which he belongs or is transferred; and

  (b) in the case of an officer or man in the Territorial Force who is liable to service outside the United Kingdom may, for the purposes of such service, and notwithstanding anything in any instrument defining the conditions of such service, authorise the drafting of any such officer or man to any unit of the Territorial Force within the corps to which he belongs or to which he may be transferred;

  and those orders and regulations may also provide for the maintenance of the rate of pay of a man who is transferred without his consent to a different arm or branch of the Service in cases in which it appears desirable to the Army Council that the rate of pay should be so maintained.
  (2) This Section shall affect officers or men of the Territorial Force notwithstanding that they were commissioned, enlisted, or re-engaged before the date of any order or regulation under this Section.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "During" ["During the present War"], insert the words "the continuance of."—[Mr. King.]
  Colonel GREIG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "in" ["in Section seven of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907"], to insert the words "the Army Act or any Act amending the same or in."
  986
  The Amendment is one which further extends the power of the law. The Clause itself is directed at getting rid of a Section in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907 which made it impossible to transfer men from one unit to another or from one branch of the Territorial Force to a branch of the Regular Army. That principle was the central principle in that Act, and I am aware that there has been a good deal of heartburning and apprehension caused by the introduction into this measure of this Clause. We had a discussion on this on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the President of the Local Government Board was good enough to convey to me an expression of opinion. Perhaps, first of all, I may be permitted to refer to a communication to the Renfrewshire Territorial Association which has been published in the "Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette":
  "The chairman, reporting on an interview that he and others had recently had on behalf of Scottish Territorial Force Associations with the Adjutant-General, stated that every evidence had been afforded them that in the eyes of the chief military authorities the Territorial Force and its administration were held in high estimation, and they were assured that everything consistent with military exigencies would be done to preserve the individuality of the Territorial Force and its administrative authorities."
  That is in entire accord with what the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to me. I have his words here, and if he will give me authority to read them I shall be glad to do so.
  Mr. LONGindicated assent.
  Colonel GREIG: I am sure it will relieve a good deal of anxiety in the Territorial Force. On the discussion of this Clause on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to me in writing the following statement:
  "The Army Council authorise me to state that transference shall only be carried out when absolutely necessary. They will always and carefully consider the just claims of local patriotism. They have no intention to allow any injury to the Territorial Force now or in future."
  The object of the Clause is to liquidate the assets of men the War Office have at their disposal. It is to make the Territorial Force transferable from one corps to another, or to the Regular Army, and it is at that point my Amendment comes in, because if it is right to make the Territorial Force transferable to the Regular Army, why should it not equally apply the other way when the exigencies of the situation demand? My Amendments are all directed to that object. It seems to

  987
  me the proposal would liquidate the assets of the nation to an even greater extent than the Clause does. There is another side to the question. When two brothers are serving in, say, units of the Regular Army, there is a King's Regulation that the elder brother can claim the younger brother. This happened in my own experience the other day. The younger brother enlisted, and was sent against his will to a unit of the Regular Army. His elder brother, who was in a Territorial unit, applied for the transfer of his younger brother to the unit in which he was serving. That was objected to, and could not be carried out on this ground:
  "Transfers to the Territorial Force from the Regular Army are not admissible; therefore this application cannot be entertained."
  My Amendment will not only liquidate the assets of the nation in the way of men, but it will permit an older brother in this way to claim his younger brother to serve with him. My other Amendments to this Clause are consequential, and my sole object is to render the liquidation of the forces complete, and not to make it possible to transfer the Territorial Force without the Territorial Force having the same right in regard to the Regular Force, if the exigencies of the military situation demand.
  Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend has sought to obtain from the Government, I gather, a public expression of the views I expressed to him privately. I cannot help congratulating the Committee that the patriotic action taken in regard to this particular Clause should be represented and led by my hon. and gallant Friend, who has done such wonderful work for the Territorial Force ever since the beginning of the War. I do not know whether the Committee are aware of the number of men he has raised up to now, and I am not sure he knows himself, as he may have lost count by this time, but I am very glad that one who occupies so well recognised a position in the Territorial Force should be here to deal with this particular Clause. Undoubtedly it has raised a great deal of anxiety and misgiving in the country. At the beginning of the War there was a widespread feeling—I know my hon. and gallant Friend opposite held it strongly, and did his best to safeguard the force of which he is a member—that the tendency of the time was to injure the Territorial Force by not giving them the recruits
  988
  they required, and the drafts which were necessary, and that it presaged disaster to the Territorial Force in the future when the War is over. I am happy to say I have the authority of the Army Council and the Adjutant-General to state that every effort will be made to avoid using this force at all except where it is necessary in the national interests; that he himself will guard, so far as it is possible for him to do so, the local feeling which has created the Territorial Force, and which has provided one of the finest bodies of men this country has ever sent to take part in its wars abroad. He will do everything in his power to safeguard them and to see that this local feeling is properly considered, and, so far from threatening its continued existence at the end of the War, he says there is nothing further from his thoughts or anticipation than that anything of the kind shall happen. I hope that statement will be explicit enough for my hon. and gallant Friend, and that the fears which have been entertained will now be dissipated. I cannot conceive that any Army Council would dare to face the position and the anger that they would bring upon themselves if they sought to interfere with the Territorial Force, which has already firmly established itself, and which, during the War, has won such glorious, laurels for itself by the part it has played in our great battles in various parts of the world. Therefore, I do not think there need be any anxiety as to the future of that force.
  As to the Amendment, I am not quite sure whether it is the Amendment which is on the Paper, or whether the hon. and gallant Member varied that, but I hope-he will not think it necessary to press it, for this reason: I am advised, after most carefully examining his Amendment, and the ones that follow, that the power he seeks is now possessed by the Army Council; that by Section 83 of the Army Act, Section 1 of the Army Amendment Act, and the Army Transfers Act, 1915, it is possible during the War to transfer a soldier from one corps to another, whether it is the same arm or branch of the Service or not. The facilities this Clause gives already exist as regards the Regular Army. Under these circumstances it would be dangerous, to put in those words, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press them. We will consider the question again, and if I find that

  989
  I am mistaken, I shall be ready on behalf of the Government to reconsider the matter at a later stage.
  Captain CASSEL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the former Act was before the House I asked that men who under that Act were brought into the Regular Army and wished to join the Territorial Force and subsequently intimated their wish that they might be transferred, I was told that that was not possible. What is the position? I raised this point on the last Bill and I was told there was nothing in it, but I still think there is. Under the Military Service Act and the Derby scheme and under this Act a man is deemed to be enlisted into the Regular Army. Enlistment into the Territorial Force direct has almost ceased. Consequently the only way that the Territorial Force in the future will get its men will be through the men coming from the Regular Army. What is done at the present time? They are in the Regular Army first and I am not aware that they are ever transferred to the Territorial Force, and if they are merely posted they are men in the Regular Army attached temporarily to the Territorial Force. I do not quite understand what the position of those men are, and I should like to have the point cleared up whether those men are really men in the Territorial Force. At any rate they have never enlisted under the four years' attestation which brings them into the Territorial Force, nor have they been transferred to the Territorial Force. Their position seems to be that they are men in the Regular Army temporarily attached to the Territorial Force, and that leaves them in an unsatisfactory position from the point of view of the Territorials.
  We do not want the Territorial Force to be merely a name to which Regular soldiers are attached. There is no sort of feeling in this matter, and we all have the same object, namely, to secure military efficiency. The right hon. Gentleman has fully recognised that the Territorials have rendered most valuable service in this War, and he has given assurances which I am sure all those who felt anxious in regard to this matter will accept as quite satisfactory. We recognise that, although it is a great hardship that men should be, contrary to the contract laid down in regard to the original Territorial Force,' transferred from one corps to another. That is a hardship, but hardships have to be set aside in the case of military neces-
  990
  sity, and where it is justified I should offer no opposition because the moment it is said that this is essential for military purposes that is the sole consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is to be used most sparingly, and only in cases where it is absolutely necessary. I have had several cases brought to my notice where in the past this has not been observed, but after what the light hon. Gentleman has said I am sure it will be attended to. I should be glad if the Government would explain exactly what is the position of a man enlisted under the Military Service Act, under this-Act, or under the Derby scheme. If he has been put into the Territorial Force is he transferable? I was told that he could not be transferred. Although I shall offer no opposition to this Clause, I should be glad if the Government would make the position clear.
  Major HAMILTON: May I point out that you cannot transfer these men? First of all, you have to discharge them from the Territorial Force and then re-enlist them in the Regular Army or vice versâ. I had to deal with many cases, and I know perfectly well what the arrangements are. The case which my hon. and gallant Friend has given of an elder brother who wishes his younger brother to join him is a real hardship. This cannot be done because the elder brother happens to be serving in what we call the New Army and has enlisted and been posted to the New Army unit instead of the Territorial unit, and permission is absolutely refused for him to be discharged and re-enlisted in order that he may transfer to serve with his brother in the Territorial unit. There is no difference now between the Territorial Force and the New Army. The Territorial Force has undoubtedly done a great deal better than anybody expected or thought possible. Not only have they done this, but they have done service second to none with the exception of the original Expeditionary Force. With regard to the Dardanelles we hear a great deal about the Anzacs, but the 19th Division there was a Territorial unit. After the Expeditionary Force had suffered heavily at the beginning of the War the Territorials took their places in the trenches, and my own unit was one of the very first to undertake that duty. It is not likely that we shall want many men transferred. My hon. and gallant Friend said there was a difficulty

  991
  about recruiting at the present time. Personally I have not found that to be the case. The men are sent in small bodies to units, and as far as the Territorial Force is concerned, I think we have been treated very fairly.
  Captain CASSEL: But they are not members legally of the Territorial Force.
  Major HAMILTON: Not legally, but they serve with the Territorial Force, and I do not anticipate much trouble there. I know this is largely a matter of sentiment, but if it is impossible to get a younger brother to serve with his elder brother just because it is a Territorial unit, that makes the Territorial soldier feel that he is rather looked down upon as an old-fashioned volunteer, and that sort of sentiment should be taken away at this period -of the War. The right hon. Gentleman said it was permissible to do this, but this letter definitely says that it is not permissible to transfer a soldier from the Regular Army or allow him to be posted with his elder brother. If that is done that is all I want. This Amendment would make it legal, and my hon. and gallant Friend says it would liquidate the resources at the disposal of the War Office. This proposal makes it possible to do in a legal manner what the right hon. Gentleman says he is quite willing to do. In that case why should the Amendment not be accepted? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to consider it on the Report stage.
  Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend is most seductive in the manner in which he puts his case. May I point out, however, that it is one of the first principles of legislation not to put in an Amendment unless you are sure that it is likely to do what you wish to be done. I am not sure that I grasp the whole difficulty, but I gather the case is that the machinery by which you secure the exchange of a man who is a Territorial or a Regular or vice versâ, is so complicated that it is seldom used, or in the majority of cases it is not used at all. On the other hand, the Army Council, as a matter of course, post Regulars to Territorials in large numbers, and they are doing it constantly. Then my hon. and gallant Friend asks what is to happen to the Force if you go on posting men who are in reality Regular soldiers of the New Army, and who are not Territorials. The real cause of this difficulty is not so much the effect of legislation as the fact that direct enlistment
  992
  through the battalion has practically stopped. There is practically no direct enlistment from its own natural source of supply, and therefore the battalion is dependent upon those recruits who are posted to them by the Army Council. That is what is now going on, and I am informed as a matter of fact that all the recruits we are now taking are recruits whose period of service lasts only for the War, and when the War is over and the New Army comes to the end of its service it will be necessary for the men to reengage, and it will be open to them to join the Territorial battalion in which they are interested.
  I am not sure that my answer covers the whole of the ground, but I do not want to have any misunderstanding. I think the case of the single individual must be met, and there should be no difficulty in bringing about this change. I have been asked myself to take up such a case. I think that difficulty really ought to be met, and I will take care to bring it before the Adjutant - General without delay. With regard to the other point, I do not see how we are going to carry it further under the present system except by interpreting the Adjutant-General's promise in the sense in which it is given, namely, that as long as he is responsible for that branch of our Army and administration he will take care that our Territorial Forces do not suffer. That is the only security we can give, and I ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. I will consult those who are responsible for the drafting, and if it is found necessary I will bring up the question again on Report.
  Colonel GREIG: I should like to be permitted to thank my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he has met us on this Amendment. The point is a difficult one, and I am not sure the machinery is quite as effectual as probably some of his expert advisers think, but I understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that it would be thoroughly considered Before Report and, if necessary, an Amendment introduced. Under those circumstances I would ask my colleagues associated with me in this Amendment not to press it any further, and I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Leave withheld.
  Mr. RADFORD: I want to clear up one or two points. I have listened, with a sense of satisfaction, to the assurance

  993
  given by my right hon. Friend that the power to be conferred by this Clause will be acted upon with the greatest consideration, and not in such a way as to destroy the entire organisation of the Territorial Army. While I received that assurance with satisfaction, and while I rely on the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman making that promise and giving that assurance, yet I am bound to say that I really attach very little importance to it. The fact is that in the circumstances of glorious war, and in the complexity of glorious war, these assurances of what it is intended to do in order to promote good feeling, are of little or no importance. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the power which is given by this Clause, of depriving members of the Territorial Force of rights conferred upon them by the Territorial Forces Act, will, in practice, result in very grave and serious injury. I have little doubt about it. While I say that I have implicit confidence in the good faith of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think we shall get what no doubt he thinks we shall get as the result of this communion with the Army Council. Passing from that point to the Amendment which is now before us, it seems to me that we have either to accept a Clause which imposes a grave injustice which we all regret, and which we all admit, on members of the Territorial Force, or accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend for Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig) and extend that injustice to the whole Army. It may be said that it is not such a great injury to inflict an injustice upon the Territorial Force as to inflict the same injustice upon the whole Army, but, on the other hand, that has the merits of equality, because they are both treated alike and if they have equal reason to complain, that should be a solace to them. For my part, I do not like it and I earnestly desire that some Amendment may be passed which shall save the members of the Territorial Force from the danger with which they are threatened and shall not involve the regular Army in a like injustice.
  Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next five Amendments are all consequential, and the following Amendment (In Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["and those Orders and Regulations may also provide"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"), standing in the name of
  994
  the hon. Baronet the Member for Prestwich (Sir F. Cawley) and others conflicts, I think, with that which we decided on Clause 10.
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: In point of fact, I suggest that the Amendment brings this Clause into line with the concession which has already been made on Clause 10.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am ready to hear the hon. Baronet, but it appears to me to conflict with the decision of the Committee on Clause 10 as amended. Is not that so?
  Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I do not think so. I had better state the object of it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Major GUEST: The object of this Amendment is to bring Clause 11 into line with Clause 10.
  Mr. LONG: Oh, no!
  Major GUEST: Under this Amendment, "those Orders and Regulations shall also provide for the maintenance of the rate of pay" except, as the other Amendment would say, "the Army Council decide that that proviso shall not apply."
  The CHAIRMAN: If that is the claim—I do not think it is so—the hon. Member is entitled to put it before the Committee and have it cleared up.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["and these orders and regulations may also provide"] and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say upon the subject, but the object of this Amendment is to bring the Clause into line with the concession already made on Clause 10, so that a man of the Territorial Force who is transferred against his will shall not lose by that transference. If he is serving in a unit which has a higher rate of pay and he is transferred to a unit which has a lower rate of pay, he shall not lose by that transference. It is perfectly immaterial whether it has anything to do with Clause 10 or not.
  Mr. LONG: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind (Major Guest) to say that this Amendment was put down in order to bring this Clause into conformity with the previous Clause.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: Not in order.
  Mr. LONG: That was the reason given.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I think my right hon. Friend is mistaken. I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend says, but I stated that it did as a matter of fact agree with the concession which has been already made. The point of the Amendment is a very simple one. It is to protect a man from compulsory loss inflicted upon him by the transference to which he is subjected. If a man is transferred, say, from the Artillery to the Infantry, and he is not protected by such a Clause as this, amended as I propose, he is liable to a loss of pay. As it stands in the Bill, it is permissive. "The orders and regulations may." We make it mandatory, and say, "The orders and regulations shall," because we consider there is no excuse for subjecting a man to a loss of pay because he is transferred in the interests of the public.
  Mr. LONG: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes this Amendment with the definite object, as I had anticipated, of making it obligatory, where a man is transferred from one corps in which he is receiving higher pay to another corps in which the rate of pay is lower, that he shall retain the pay he has been receiving in the higher-paid corps. He shall receive it in all circumstances. That really is not in conformity with the previous Clause. The change we have made merely transposes the way in which the discretion of the Army Council is to be exercised. Here my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to lay it down that the man shall not, if he is transferred, lose in any respect his pay or allowances.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I could not proceed to consider the Amendment which comes lower down, but although this puts it in a mandatory form power is still left to the Army Council to consider these cases, and if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) were accepted it would make it incumbent upon the Army Council to show a reason for doing it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Now I think I see. The hon. and gallant Member cannot do that. He cannot move this Amendment on the supposition that some subsequent Amendment may be accepted, because it might not. It would leave the Bill in the
  996
  position of having two contradictory Clauses in it, and it is my duty to see that is not done.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I do not think that quite follows from what I have said. My right hon. Friend was going on to draw a distinction between this and the previous Clause, and I thought it well to draw his attention to what was coming further on. Personally, I should be perfectly satisfied with my Amendment leaving it in this mandatory form, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has put down another Amendment, and I thought that might be fairly accepted.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think, under the circumstances, it is my duty to withdraw the Amendment from the consideration of the Committee, and to call on the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) to move his Amendment.
  Captain CASSEL: The two Clauses are not really contradictory. The first applies to the Regular Army, and the second to the Territorials.
  Major GUEST: The Act of 1915 applies to the Regular Army, and this Clause deals with the Territorial Force, and it is to put the two on a par that this Amendment is moved. We want to provide that a man shall not lose pay by being transferred. With regard to the point whether it should be left to the Army Council to decide or not, that is not raised by the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend or the Amendment down in my name.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must leave it to the Committee to decide the point, and consequently the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is still before the Committee.
  Mr. LONG: It really raises the question in a form in which it is convenient to discuss it. As I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's proposition, it is that no man who is serving should lose pay because he is transferred to another branch of the Service. Now this Clause was deliberately inserted for these reasons. My hon. and gallant Friend knows, probably better than most people, that a most objectionable feature in the constitution of the Army is to have two sets of men serving under different conditions for different rates of pay, side by side, doing the same duty. That is a general reason. In this case, of course, there is a special difficulty.

  997
  When our Armies were raised at the beginning of the War it was necessary to obtain a very large number of men for motor and other transport purposes, and we offered them very high rates of pay—I believe as much as 5s. or 6s. per day. A great many men were recruited for this purpose who have turned out altogether incapable of doing the work which had to be done. Meanwhile, we were able elsewhere to get men to do this work, and the men who have proved incapable are being transferred to ordinary battalions to do ordinary work. It does seem most unfair to have serving side by side, doing identically the same work, and taking exactly the same risks, men with different rates of pay, one man probably getting four or five times as much as another man. Nothing could justify that except the fact that the man was originally engaged on that condition. I shall be told that this is another "scrap of paper" and another breach of the covenant solemnly entered into. There is no doubt that a great deal in this Bill involves breaches of agreements, but the answer is that we are engaged in a great war in which the nation is called upon to make an immense effort and if there are cases in which the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the nation, then the interest of the nation must prevail. It is therefore impossible under these circumstances for the Government to accept an Amendment which makes it obligatory that these transfers should carry with them the same rate of pay. The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Stock-port, which accepts the main principle laid down in Clause 10, is one we are prepared to accept with the consequential alterations. But to the introduction into this Bill of the mandatory form embodied in my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment we are bound to offer opposition.
  Mr. WARDLE: Let us see where we stand. As I understand it, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Monmouthshire has moved an Amendment which is practically in the same words as an Amendment which I have down. If the Committee accept the word "shall" instead of the word "may," we can proceed to deal with my consequential Amendment which will comply with what the President of the Local Government Board has just said.
  Mr. LONG: That is all right.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Stockport has, I see, an Amendment to alter the word "may" into "shall," to be followed by other Amendments in immediately succeeding lines to insert the word "except" after "service," and the word "not" after "appears." I take it all these are part of one proposal?
  Mr. WARDLE: That is so, and if the hon. and gallant Member moves the one standing in his name, then it is understood that my consequential Amendments will be put.
  Major-General Sir I. HERBERT: I am afraid I did not make my meaning quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no intention on my part to move the omission of the words at the end of the Clause, as I had originally proposed. Now I suppose my right hon. Friend and I are at one.
  Mr. LONG: Quite so.
  Mr. KING: I am told that this is a very good concession. But it appears to me to be a very bad one. I can only say that if my hon. and gallant Friend had in him the fight I have in me he would not be content with this; he would ask for a great deal more. Still, as he is content, I shall not press my Amendments.
  Mr. RADFORD: The President of the Local Government Board seeks to justify the Clause in the Bill after having admitted that it is a gross breach of contract. He seeks to justify it on the ground that we have committed other breaches of contract. That leaves me entirely cold. It reminds me of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions who endeavoured to excite unity on the Compulsion Bill on general principles. I belong to the old school and I cannot rise to the flights to which these young statesmen soar. It seems to me that if a man has got a contract to do a job at a certain rate there is a sense of meanness, which it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to justify, in moving him to another place in order that his wages may be cut down by one-half. I hope the Amendment will be persevered with in some form or other. If it is I shall be glad to give it my hearty support.
  Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived. Word "shall" there inserted.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (l), after the word "service" ["branch of the service"], insert the word "shall."
  After the word "appears" insert the word "not."
  Mr. KING: The Amendments which I have on the Paper appear to me to offer a very much better solution of this difficulty than the one which the Government has accepted. I therefore shall not trouble to propose them, but I must say I hope the. Governmen will do better next time.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Provision as to Liability of Territorials to Serve Outside the United Kingdom.)
  Where an officer or man of the Territorial Force has, before or after the passing of this Act, accepted liability to serve in any place out of the United Kingdom, that liability shall continue, notwithstanding anything in the conditions of service, during the continuance of the present War, unless the competent military authority as denned for the purposes of Part II. of the Army Act otherwise direct.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. KING: I cannot allow a Clause like this to go without protest. It is another of those contracts solemnly made, on the basis of which many men have come forward. These contracts are now to be torn up. Many men have joined the Territorial Force and have volunteered to go and fight at the front, a duty which they never really contemplated when they entered the Force. For many months they have been doing that duty and have been in danger, and yet now they are to be told that up to the end of the War they are to be continued in this position. Considering the tone and spirit in which our protests are received, and in which suggestions for a mitigation of these hardships are dealt with, I feel bound not to let this occasion pass without calling attention to the fact that once again we are breaking a solemn contract, and thereby involving the men concerned in great hardships. These things make me more and more convinced that the Bill as a whole is a great mistake, and will not improve the spirit of the men in the Army.
  Mr. BARLOW: I want to say one word about this matter because it has created a certain amount of discussion in the ranks of the Territorials. What this pro-
  1000
  posal does really is to put the Territorial soldier in the same position as any other serving soldier; it secures that the Territorial as a result of his contract is not in a privileged position. I agree it goes against the grain when men who have taken upon themselves the great sacrifice of enlisting for foreign service have their contracts altered in any way to their detriment, but all we are doing by this Clause is to put the Territorial on the same footing as the man who enlisted in the new Army, and in these circumstances we are not really inflicting a hardship upon him, we are only securing he shall not be in a privileged position. Surely that is a reasonable proposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 14.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Military Service Acts, 1916, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and this Act (so far as they relate to the Territorial Force) may be cited together as the Territorial Force Acts, 1907 and 1916.
  Amendment made: After the word "Act" ["principal Act and this Act"], insert the words "shall be read together and".
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary for Scotland does not move the new Clause (Removal of Doubts as to Meaning of "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" in Army Act) which stands in his name, and with regard to the two new Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) dealing with Amendments of the Army Act, they are outside the scope of the Bill. I now call upon the hon. Member to move his proposed new Clause to amend Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the principal Act.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Sub-section (2) of Section One of the Principal Act.)
  In paragraph (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section one of the principal Act there shall be added after the words "suffer death" the words "or undergo penal servitude."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  8.0 P.M.
  This raises the question of the punishment of conscientious objectors. They are supposed under the principal Act not to be liable to the death penalty, although it is continually being said to them and to other people that they are liable to the death penalty. I want to carry the matter further and say that they shall not be liable either to the death penalty or to penal servitude. I understand that a number of conscientious objectors have already been sent to penal servitude. It has certainly been announced that they have been sent to two years' penal servitude, but, as the sentence of penal servitude is never given for less than three years, I think there must be some mistake somewhere.
  Captain CASSEL: It would be two years' imprisonment.
  Mr. KING: They have probably had imprisonment for two years. At any rate, there is no doubt whatever that the conscientious objectors are being subjected now to very severe penalties. Perhaps I may break off my remarks here to observe that we are now entering upon the question of conscientious objectors, and a great number of Members wish to take part in the discussion, and if I can assist you, Sir, or the Committee by postponing my remarks to some other occasion, or falling in with any other suggestion which you may have to make as to some other point being better for raising the question, I am quite willing to fall in with anything to which you and the Committee may agree.
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir George Cave): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that so far as my knowledge goes it is not a fact that any conscientious objector has been sent to penal servitude.
  The CHAIRMAN: As to the hon. Member's suggestion, I suppose that he was referring to an unofficial suggestion I made that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if hon. Members having Amendments dealing with one subject should come together and concentrate upon a particular Amendment rather than spread their Amendments over the Bill. I would point out that it is no part of my authority to say that that should be done.
  Mr. D. MASON: Can you, Sir, suggest a better opportunity than this?
  Mr. KING: I should be perfectly willing to fall in with that suggestion. I see there are several new Clauses upon the Paper dealing with the subject. The difficulty is that we cannot now put them together and have them on the Order Paper in a convenient form. The suggestion you, Sir, made seems an admirable one, and I shall be glad to fall in with it if we are to have another day given to us, so that we may come together and put the new Clauses in form and have a full discussion on the subject, but I cannot see how we can do it unless we relegate the whole discussion to the Report stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Member that the New Clause he is moving will certainly not touch more than a little part of the question. There is a New Clause on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell—Exemption on the Ground of Conscientious Objection) which will come on in a few minutes. I propose to call that hon. Member whose Clause raises a much wider question. I think that would probably meet the convenience of the Committee.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: The hon. Member for Burnley has asked me to move that new Clause for him.
  Mr. KING: I will be very brief in moving my new Clause. The statement we had just now from the Solicitor-General that no conscientious objector has so far been sent to penal servitude is undoubtedly satisfactory from my point of view. I hope it is correct, and I do not for a moment doubt the good faith of the Solicitor-General. It is quite possible that a number of sentences of a very severe character have been given just recently within the last few days, he notice of which may yet have reached the Department. I sincerely hope the Government will accept this New Clause. It will carry out in law what I am sure must be the feeling and wishes of the Government, namely, that conscientious objectors shall neither be put to death for their conscience sake nor sent to penal servitude. Let them be punished. Although I am not a conscientious objector, I have taken part in the movement. I have said again and again in this House that if they compelled old men instead of

  1003
  young men to go to the War, I would go, but I say most unhesitatingly that there are conscientious objectors who ought to be respected, that they have received severe and cruel punishments, and that this Committee ought to take the earliest possible occasion of indicating that it does not wish them to be absolutely crushed and made for years to come incapable of doing specific work because they have a conscientious objection.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not propose to go into the general question raised by my hon. Friend in his concluding words, partly because it would not be in order to do so, and also because this Clause would apply not only to a conscientious objector, but to all men who are under obligations of military service. I thought it was desirable to say at once that, so far as my information goes, in no case has such a sentence of penal servitude been passed. As my hon. Friend knows, such a sentence could not be less than three years for an offence of this kind. His proposal is to enact that the man who does not obey the call to military service shall in no case suffer penal servitude. It is extremely unlikely that any case will arise where such a sentence would be imposed, but at the same time it is very undesirable to minimise this very serious offence, and if at the present moment we were to pass an Amendment saying that the House thinks otherwise than seriously of the offence, it wohld unquestionably be very unwise. I hope the hon. Member will not press the New Clause.
  Captain CASSEL: In confirmation of what the Solicitor-General has said, I might say that the district courts-martial, by which alone these people are tried, have no power to impose the sentence of penal servitude. It is only a general court-martial.
  Mr. KING: I am rather surprised to hear that. The Solicitor-General spoke of a conscientious objection as being a very serious offence.
  Sir G. CAVE: No, I said nothing of the kind. I spoke only of the offence of refusing to obey the call to military service.
  Question put, and negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next two Clauses in the name of the same hon.
  1004
  Member [Enlistment of Irish Rebels and Restriction on Discharge from the Army of Persons Suffering from Venereal Disease] are outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: The Clause which stands in my name [Revision of Exemption Certificate] raises a point of some importance, and I understand that it would be more convenient if I raise it on the Report stage; therefore I do not move it now.
  The CHAIRMAN: The next Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) [Power for Soldiers to Vote] is outside the scope of the Bill, and the same applies to the next four Clauses on Paper.
  Mr. KING: Is my New Clause [Construction] out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: It ought to come as an Amendment to the Clause in the Bill. The next group of Clauses in the name of the hon. Member are all outside the scope of the Bill. They deal with Amendments to the Army Act.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Compulsory Military Service.)
  (1) Without prejudice and in addition to any other application of Sub-section (1) of the principal Section, the said Sub-section shall apply as from the appointed date specified in the next following Subsection of this Section to all the persons to whom this Section applies other than the persons specified in Sub-sections (1) and (4) of the principal Section as persons who are to be deemed as from the appointed date for the purposes of the principal Act to have been duly enlisted, and the principal Act and this Act shall have effect accordingly.
  (2) The appointed date shall—

  (a) as respects men who, on account of the provisions of this Section, come on the passing of this Act within the operation of Sub-section (1) of the principal Section, be the thirtieth day after the date of the passing of this Act;

  (b) as respects men who, on account of the provisions of this Section, come after the passing of this Act within the operation of Sub-section (1) of the principal Section, be the thirtieth day after the date on which they so come within that operation.

  (3) This Section applies to every male British subject—

  (a) who has at any time since the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, been, or for the time being is ordinarily resident in Great Britain; and

  (b) who has attained the age of eighteen years and has not attained the age of forty-one years;

  unless he either is for the time being within the statutory exceptions or has attained the age of forty-one years before the appointed date specified in the last foregoing Sub-section of this Section.
  (4) In this Act the expression "principal Act" means the Military Service Act, 1916, and in this Section—

  (a) the expression "statutory exceptions" means the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to the principal Act, as amended by this Act or any subsequent enactment; and

  (b) the expression "principal Section" means Section one of the principal Act.

  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I put this Clause down because I hope that the Solicitor-General admits that Clause 1 in its present drafting will not stand. It will have to be amended. I have taken a good deal of trouble about this. It is an important proposal to get over a drafting difficulty which, I think, still exists. If the Solicitor-General will tell me that he recognises, as I think he admitted in the earlier part of our Committee proceedings—
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand from the hon. Member that this is his drafting of the Government Bill. We cannot have two different draftings of one Bill in one cover. Therefore, I cannot put it to the Committee.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Local Tribunal to make Attendance at Drill with Volunteer Corps a Condition of Exemption from Military Service.)
  A certificate granted by the local tribunal under Sub-section (3) of Section two of the principal Act as conditional or temporary may impose as a condition upon a person to whom it is granted an obligation
  1006
  to attend a minimum number of drills per month with a unit of the Volunteer Force of the United Kingdom, provided always reasonable facilities for such drills are available.
  Failure to attend in any one month the minimum number of drills without the permission in writing of the commanding officer of the unit to which he is attached may be reported to the local recruiting officer and make the holder of the certificate liable to be called up for service with the Colours.
  While the holder of such certificate is attached to a unit of the Volunteer Force of the United Kingdom he shall be liable to the conditions of service of the Force.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  On the Second Reading I put forward arguments in favour of this Clause, and I do not intend to elaborate them. It is in no sense a controversial Clause, and I hope it will meet with approval from both sides of the Committee. What is proposed is already being done by some tribunals all over the country, without legislative authority. Many local tribunals, not only in the provinces—I know of one also in the County of London—have already taken the course suggested in this Clause, but there are many local tribunals who hesitate to take the course recommended without the authority of Parliament. There is nothing like an Act of Parliament to encourage procedure of this character. What happens in the ordinary way is that local tribunals have to consider claims for a certain number of postponements and exemptions. They have to select a certain number of men from a trade, industry, or business for postponement and exemption. Postponements are given on certain conditions, and the men entirely escape for the time being from the military authorities. They are lost sight of and go back to the civil population. In these times the fact that a man is postponed does not for a moment mean that he escapes responsibility for defending his country. In case of invasion it would be necessary for industry to stop and for the whole nation to take part in the defence of their homes. But where a man is not enrolled in any force, all he can do is either to stand idly by or take part in civil work, and it would be impossible for him to shoulder a rifle

  1007
  and share the defence of these shores. These Volunteer corps do enable a man in case of invasion to defend his home, and by the local tribunals putting in as a condition of postponement that a man shall undertake to enrol in a Volunteer Corps, they are seeing not only that a man can have an opportunity to fight for his country but that he is genuinely doing his best in the meantime, and is not merely asking for a postponement in order to shirk having his fair share in the military defence of the country. Of course, there are many other arguments in favour of this proposal. Ultimately these men will have to be called up, and when they are called up they will enter the Army as raw recruits. It is a great thing to get these men ready for the time when they are required for the Regular Army, to get them accustomed to military discipline and get them physicaly fit, so that when they are called up they will be not raw recruits, but very soon ready to go to the front and be a fighting unit in the corps to which they are called up. I know there are some who rather depreciate the utility of this part-time service, but I think that criticism is best answered by the remarkable success of the Territorials at the outbreak of the War. By reason of the training—the part-time training—they received before the War, they were able to go to the front many months before Kitchener's Army, and everyone knows how successful the Territorial regiments proved and how useful it was that they were receiving before the War spare-time training.
  It may be suggested that this is a Bill to immediately increase the number of fighting men the Army Council have at the front, and that this Clause does not help that particular object. That is very far from the case. I do not for a moment suggest that any more men should be postponed under this Clause. The men who claim will still have to prove that they are for the moment indispensable, but I am proposing, in addition to having to prove that, that in special cases the authorities would be entitled to insist on the exempted man undertaking to train with a Volunteer Corps. That will mean an increase in number and in strength of the Volunteers. An increase in the number of the Volunteers will make them more efficient for Home defence purposes, and in consequence the War Office will be able
  1008
  to spare more men from Home defence for service at the front. In other words, it will increase the potential fighting power of our military force. During the last few weeks the military authorities have been making more and more use of Volunteer Corps to do various duties previously undertaken by the Regular or Territorial Armies, such as patrolling lines of communication and guarding vulnerable points. At London railway stations there is a certain number of Regular soldiers doing comparatively routine work. These duties could be undertaken by Volunteer Corps. Owing to the large depletion of the ranks of the Volunteer Corps it is very difficult for them to find sufficient numbers to do the work on a rota system, because if they are spare-time corps they can only undertake these guard and patrol duties on a rota system. If postponed and exempted men were sent to these corps their numbers would be increased and they would be able to undertake more duties than they have previously been able to do. In other words, owing to the fact that Volunteer Corps would be increased by my proposal, the Regular Army will be, from a fighting point of view, increased in strength. I do not believe there will be any serious opposition to this proposal. I have had support for it from all parts of the country, and not only from the Volunteer Corps, who are very anxious to undertake the training of these men, but also from men who, though unable at present to join the Forces and are claiming exemption and would like to get postponement, are still anxious to do their bit in the defence of the country.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I think this an admirable provision, and I believe the men who underwent training as Volunteers would derive a very great advantage from it, and when enrolled in the Regular Army would find that their time had been most profitably spent. I have for some time had the honour of being associated with a Volunteer Corps which, I believe, would rank in point of efficiency with any Territorial Force before the outbreak of the War. It has given to the Regular and Territorial Army no fewer than 400 commissioned officers, so that these bodies are entitled to be regarded with very great respect by the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers find it possible to accept this new Clause the Army Council will have no reason to regret the step they have taken.
  Mr. LONG: I think that we are all in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend who moved this Clause has in view. He has identified himself with this Volunteer movement with great devotion and with remarkable success. I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth), that it does undoubtedly express what is a very general sentiment in the country, that the men and the lads of this country ought to take every opportunity that offers to join the Volunteers and to fit themselves, as far as they can, for the defence of their country. There is no doubt that the tribunals have power at the present time, If they choose, to attach a condition of this kind, so I am advised, to any certificate of exemption that may be prepared to grant. I confess that I do not quite like to put a power of this kind into the Bill. It seems to me, to some extent, to conflict with the principle of the Volunteer movement. The great merit of the Volunteer movement is that it is a voluntary decision on the part of the individual to submit himself to the training and discipline which is part of the Volunteer system. If this Clause were adopted, and the tribunal made it a condition that a man should undertake these duties, you would, to a certain extent, I do not press it too far be injuring the Volunteer movement. I hope the fact that this Clause has been received with sympathy in the House will secure the end which my hon. Friend has in view, and that he will be content with that and will not ask us to add it to the Bill. I do not think, on the whole, that it would be desirable. It might raise a false impression in the country as to the way in which the Volunteer movement is supported. I believe that the tribunals can, if they like, indicate that the applicant ought to join a voluntary course, and, I think, after this short debate, the object which my hon. Friend has in view will be attained without making the Clause part of the Bill.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Clause be withdrawn?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with amazement, for many reasons. I was utterly bewildered when he sat down as to whether he has recommended the Committee to accept the Clause or to reject
  1010
  it. I do not see why he cannot accept the Clause, or why he should strain at the gnat after swallowing the camel of compulsion. I rose mainly on account of the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the tribunals have, under the existing Act, the right to impose, as a condition of giving exemption on the ground of indispensability, that the man should join some Volunteer corps as a conscript, or in other words that he should become a conscript Volunteer. I am not a lawyer, but you, Mr. Maclean, are the chairman of an appeal tribunal, and we all know with what fairness, impartiality, ability and sound judgment you have discharged your duties on that appeal tribunal, and I am quite sure it must have come to you as a great surprise to hear that when you have made it a condition of exemption that there should be grounds of business or indispensability, the individual in question could also be compelled to become a Volunteer. It has come with consternation to the Committee to learn that such a construction as that has been placed upon the existing Act by the official spokesman of the Government, and I think no time ought to be lost in getting the confirmation of the law officers of the Crown for such an extraordinary statement as that. I would like to know whether a tribunal when deciding an application based on the ground of business circumstances or the indispensability of a workman, can make it a condition that he shall join some Volunteer corps. If I were supporting this Clause I should press this argument. We were told last night by the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery)—who proved a very true prophet three months ago when he said there mould be a measure for the extension of the Military Service Bill within three months—that the proposal to raise the military age to forty-five will come very soon. If that he so I think that from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of military necessity it is very desirable that you should be giving some training now to the men who are going to be made conscripts within the next two or three months. I need hardly say that if the proposal were made now, seriously, I should oppose it. I simply mention this because I do not see from the point of view of those who are defending this Bill why the Government should not accept this Clause. I gather from the Mover of the Clause that he does not intend to

  1011
  press it. If he did I should vote against it. I should like before we pass away from the Clause to have some confirmation of the extraordinary interpretation of the Act which has been given by the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. NIELD: I do not think that I quite follow the last speaker. I cannot imagine that any tribunal would contemplate such a condition in relation to a claim for exemption on the ground of indispensability, but I can understand this condition having some weight with a tribunal when dealing with the question of domestic hardship. You may have facts of such a character as to bring the matter on to the border line, and then the advantage of possessing such a condition as this might be sufficient to determine the tribunal in favour of an order of exemption. I think such an order would have very great value in getting the man in condition for any fur-further service if it be necessary, either by an alteration of circumstances or the passing away of the special hardship which would enable and justify the military authorities in asking for a revision of the certificate. Up to the present time, I have not for a moment supposed that the Act gave us any such power, and I do not understand how it is that the President of the Local Government Board should imagine that we have the power already to enact such a condition as that. I do not agree with him that the effect would be to destroy the Volunteer movement. I suppose it would be put as a question, "Are you willing"? and therefore this condition would not so interfere with the voluntary nature of the corps' existence as to be a substantial objection to these orders being made in suitable cases. I do not suppose they would be very numerous, but I do think such orders would give an opportunity for determining an application when the point of decision has got into the condition of see-saw, because these orders would enable the tribunals very often to grant an exemption in suitable cases.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member is a lawyer, and he has had experience of tribunals under the existing Act. Of course it is quite evident that if this Amendment is passed the tribunals would have the legal right to impose as a condition that the man should join some training corps where the certificate was given mainly on the ground of domestic hardship. That is a point about which I would like to ques-
  1012
  tion the hon. and learned Member. Is it his opinion that under the existing Act such a condition can be imposed by a tribunal in granting a certificate on the grounds of domestic hardship?
  Mr. NIELD: I have already said that I do not think it possible to do so. Looking at the principal Act, Clause 2, Subsection (3). I have never regarded the words
  "provided that a certificate granted on the ground of the continuance of education or training,"
  and so on, as sufficient authority, and certainly the words of the preceding paragraphs do not seem to cover the point. I should never have dreamed of making such an order.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Then the opinion of the hon. and learned Member conflicts directly with that expressed by the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should have thought that there could have been very little doubt about this. Persons who come before the tribunal, whether hon. Members think that is desirable or not, are persons who are legally liable to military service. The tribunal can impose upon them no liability to service which Parliament has not placed upon them. They are there asking for exemption. As I understand the Act the tribunal can give an exemption which will be conditional, and they could say, "You are liable under the Act to devote your whole time as a soldier in the Army, but in the conditions which you place before us we will exempt you from your legal liability if you will undertake something which is less than the full legal liability to serve which Parliament has placed upon you." I do not know whether the fact that the tribunals have this power would be regarded by my hon. Friends as desirable, but it seems to me clear that that is a power which Parliament has given.
  Captain CASSEL: The words of the original Act, Sub-section (3) of Section 2, might well be regarded as giving a power of imposing such a condition. The words are
  "Any certificate of exemption may be absolute, conditional or temporary as the authority by whom it was granted think best suited to the case."
  The only limitation placed upon that condition is "No certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to

  1013
  whom it is granted continuing in or entering into employment under any specified employer, or in any specified place or establishment." That seems to give a general power to the tribunal of imposing conditions. The tribunal might very well consider in some cases that it would be a hardship to compel a man to enlist as a soldier where his whole time would be taken up. Still, it might fairly impose a condition upon him that he should be submitted to some kind of training, which would still be consistent with his carrying on his business. I have so long left the law that I feel rather rusty in it, but it seems to me that that would be not an altogether unreasonable interpretation of the Act.
  Mr. NIELD: I would ask the Solicitor-General can he point to any circular of the Local Government Board—and they are legion—in which this ground is taken?
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not propose to give any opinion on the legal aspect of the matter, as it would not be worth anything, but the possibility of attaching such a condition as this opens out a very wide vista, because if you can attach this condition I do not know what condition you cannot attach. You might make it a condition that a man should go to church on Sunday, or join a football club or a dancing club. Therefore I regret very much that the Government are not prepared to put ft into this Bill, because I think that it would be a most excellent condition to attach in many cases. I do not attach any importance to merely verbal criticism about a man being a compelled volunteer. The position would be perfectly clear. He would be serving his country and helping to get ready for the Army. Whatever joke we might make to him about it would be a matter of absolutely no importance. My reason for wishing to see this put into this Bill is chiefly that there will necessarily be a great deal of dislocation, industrial and social and in the family, in taking away for the Army the married men and to a great extent the unmarried men who have ties, and it seems to me that that dislocation might be eased in a great many cases without any disadvantage to the country if the man was allowed to stay at home a little longer than otherwise could be done, on condition that he put in a considerable number of drills in his spare time with the Volunteer Training Corps, and thereby prepared himself to serve his
  1014
  country. It seems to me that this new Clause would really assist us very much in the good work which we have in hand. Therefore I hope that the Government will still accept it and remove all doubt as to whether there is power for the tribunals to act in this way or not.
  Mr. ESSLEMONT: I would like to understand the position in regard to this Amendment. I heard the President of the Local Government Board very indistinctly when he was discussing this Amendment, but I understand that he intimated to the Committee that under the principal Act tribunals had the power to impose this form of service on any appellant. We have it from one Member of the House who is, I understand, the chairman of a tribunal, that neither he nor any of the members of the tribunal ever understood that they were at liberty to impose any condition of this kind. And we have heard from another legal Member of this House that the condition laid down in a certain Subsection of the principal Act would empower the tribunals to impose a condition of this kind. But the material thing to consider is that the military authorities have made no provision for a condition of this kind. What military organisation is there in operation which would be in a position to take over a man who had imposed upon him a condition of this kind? I am not aware that it exists. For that reason I would urge the Government to let us know definitely that this is within the powers of the tribunal under the principal Act, and that if the members of the tribunal think it right and proper to impose such a condition I think that we ought to have the assurance that the necessary form of partial training which is facilitated under this Amendment will be arranged for by the military authorities.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I desire to refer to the question whether there is already power to impose a condition of this sort. If there is such power, then there is power on the part of the tribunal to impose any conditions they like. That is a reading of the Act which is quite new to this House, because we had a quite clear idea, both in the legislation and in the subsequent Regulations, all of which I have read, as to what was meant by the word "condition"—such things as a man remaining in a certain industry that was essential for the carrying on of the War, and so on. That was made quite clear in the Regulations. If it is now to be argued that that word

  1015
  "conditional" is so wide that a condition can be imposed, then the very gravest danger opens up. You can compel a, man in these circumstances to do anything you like as an alternative to his going into the Army. I agree with the hon. and learned Member opposite that there is no such power at present. I have never heard that, and I would ask the Government to state if, any such condition has ever been imposed by any tribunal since this Act came into operation. I do not believe that it has. We ought to be quite clear on that point, because it is vital in this sense, that if you can impose such a condition under the present legislation, as the President of the Local Government Board argued that you could, then I know no condition which you could not impose in a similar case.
  Sir G. CAVE: I did not wish to make any statement until the proper time came. I think my right hon. Friend's explanation with regard to the Amendment is quite clear. He expressed great sympathy with it, but said that it would require more consideration and probably more preparation. But whatever the legal view of the principal Act may be, he is not prepared to accept the Amendment to-night. With regard to the point of law which has been raised, I hesitate to express any view in presence of the conflicting opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen, for whose opinions I have the greatest possible respect. My feeling is that if one looks at the Act there is really no limitation in the Act itself. The Act says quite plainly that a certificate of exemption may be absolute, conditional, or temporary. These are the only words which apply generally to these certificates of exemption. It is true that in Sub-section (3) there is a provision that no certificate shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted entering into employment under a specified employer or in a specified place. That provision seems to me to show how wide the general words are. But for that particular restriction the tribunal might require the man to enter into a particular employment or to be employed in a particular place. So that these general words—I am only speaking off-hand, of course—would have to be very carefully considered. I do not deal with the Regulations, because I have. not got them before me, but there may be something in them as they stand to cut down the general words which are in the
  1016
  Act. I am not aware, and I do not know whether my hon. Friends are aware, of any such conditions being imposed at the present time. I have not heard that it is being done. Though the point is one of interest, I do not see how it is relevant at the present moment, unless the House goes behind the decision of my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption on the Ground of Conscientious Objection.)
  A certificate of exemption granted under Section two, Sub-section (1), of the principle Act on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service may be either absolute or conditional, but, where a conditional certificate is granted, the condition upon which it is imposed shall be the performance of some work of national importance that does not involve service under any military authority.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time"
  Mr. E. HARVEY: My hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) has asked me to move this Clause for him, and perhaps it might be convenient to the Committee and the Government if it were made the occasion of a general Debate in regard to the question of the conscientious objector.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that when he rises to move a Clause standing in the name of another hon. Member, I must see that it is done with the consent of the Committee, and I, therefore, give that intimation in order to prevent this indulgence being quoted as a precedent.
  Mr. HARVEY: I only want to make the suggestion that it would probably save a good deal of time if we took the general discussion now, so that the various Clauses could be put without any intention of a prolonged discussion.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot give any ruling on the point. If it is desired—and it would seem the more convenient course—to take the general discussion now, I shall not withhold my consent.
  Mr. HARVEY: In moving the Clause I hope that the Committee may be able to

  1017
  see that a very difficult situation has admittedly arisen in the administration of the Act with regard to the conscientious objector. It is very largely due to the questions raised by the position of the conscientious objector being so difficult that no system that I ever heard of can be expected to give an absolutely satisfactory solution. With the best intentions there must be liability to mistakes, in dealing with the conscientious objector, which cannot be avoided by any machinery of legislation. At the same time I think anyone who has studied the administration of the Act must have felt convinced that there have been a number of serious cases of miscarriage of justice. The inequalities of the decisions of the tribunals is an admitted fact, and it is one which the existing Act provides no remedy for, one set of tribunals deciding one way on a given set of facts, and another set of tribunals acting in a diametrically different way. There are cases in which there are most painful results. In one case a schoolmaster was taken from his school, though the wish was to retain him. He was taken off, and was granted exemption from combatant duties only. He was not willing to accept this, because he could not conscientiously accept that form of exemption, and he is now in a military prison. His place was immediately taken in the same school by another conscientious objector, who has already received in my own district, from a different tribunal, exemption conditional on his continuing to teach. The injustice of that particular case, which I happen to know, is so patent that I think anyone will feel that there ought to be some method of obtaining greater regularity of decision by those tribunals. I believe that those who are administering the Act in these tribunals themselves feel that there is this inequality, which the present Act does nothing to avoid.
  But, over and above that, I think it must be admitted by anyone who has gone into a large number of these cases, that since the beginning of the Act very inadequate use has been made of the provision for exemptions conditional upon engaging on work of national importance. And quite a mistaken use has been made of the chief alternative form of exemption from combatant duties only. There are a certain number of men who feel that they cannot conscientiously undertake the duty of a soldier in the fighting line in the actual taking of life, but who may be able to undertake other military duties. The vast
  1018
  majority of conscientious objectors, however, cannot take that position. Their objection is to undertaking military service. The great majority of these men are prepared to take other service, even under very difficult conditions. They do not ask for an easy task or a soft job. That they cannot feel satisfied with the form of exemption which has been allowed by the tribunal is already shown by the large number of men who have gone through very severe hardships in consequence of the belief which they hold, thus proving the reality of their conscientious objection. Parliament did not intend that the sincere conscientious objector should have to go to a military prison in consequence of his creed. That is what is actually taking: place. It is bad for the Army and it is a trouble to the courts-martial that a number of extremely difficult cases which must be painful to the officers should have to be dealt with. It cannot be good for the discipline of the Army to have this very difficult problem introduced, and it certainly is not good for the men, because it must tend to produce a sense of injustice that men should be put into this position. It is not good either for the State or the individual. It is particularly bad for the nation which permits this to go on. In many cases these men are people who have given great service already to the community. In their spare time they do social work, and in some cases they have devoted the whole of their lives to work which is obviously of national importance. In consequence of the way in which the Act is administered they are taken away from where they are really useful and wanted and put into a military prison to be a cause of anxiety and trouble and ill-feeling. That cannot be a good thing, and I very much hope that the Government will find some way of dealing with it.
  9.0 P.M.
  It is quite clear that it ought to be made evident to tribunals that this form of exemption conditional upon undertaking work of national importance is the one which should be used in all cases of the kind, and that it is the form which will alone satisfy the convictions of the men in question. That has not generally been done in the past, and, unless it is, this problem will increase in gravity. Secondly, it is necessary that some way should be found of dealing with these men who, in many cases through quite pardonable ignorance, were given exemption from combatant duties only without the tribunal realising that that necessarily involved the

  1019
  man becoming a soldier. I know in one case a very distinguished chairman, after pronouncing that decision, said, "The new Government Committee can now deal with your case." He referred to the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, but they were quite unable to do so. There were quite a number of cases brought to my notice where verbally the applicant was informed by the tribunal that they would be satisfied if he undertook work of national importance The certificate has been granted in the form of exemption from combatant duties only, and that has been quite useless for the purpose intended. I believe that in general the purpose has been that the men in question should engage in useful work. In one case I consulted the vice-chairman of an appeal tribunal on this point. I understand the President of the Local Government Board to consider that tribunals might be offended if decisions on this point were varied in any way. This gentleman informed me that no such thought ever entered into his mind and that in making that decision they merely wished to hand the man over to the Government so that they should decide to assign him some useful work, and that they had no intention to apply military machinery against which the man's conscience revolted. I think that was a common-sense attitude and I think in the name of common sense as well as of justice we ought to find a better way of dealing with this problem. This Clause makes it clear that where exemption is not absolute it should be conditional upon work which does not involve service under any military authority. If we only had this form in the Bill I believe that nine-tenths and perhaps ninety-nine hundredths of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to the conscientious objector would be swept away. It is a painful thing that such cases should exist. I am sure it is very painful to many of those in the Army who have to deal with these cases. Officers do not like to have to deal with these men and in some cases even the soldiers dislike it. I believe the whole institution of the non-combatant corps has been a most regrettable mistake. It was an honest attempt, no doubt, from one point of view to make use of service placed at the disposal of the Army, but it was made without any comprehension of the point of view which led these men to take con-
  1020
  scientious objection to military service. When the proposal was first brought forward it was treated with ridicule in the country, and I believe in the Army as well. I know that in France the very idea of a non-combatant soldier was treated with contempt as a contradiction in terms, as indeed it is, for if these men are soldiers they are necessarily part of the fighting forces, and it is really absurd to treat them as soldiers and at the same time have this peculiar exemption given to them respecting their conscience. Personally, I ask no easy position for the man who receives exemption. I do not think the great majority of them desire it. They are perfectly prepared to prove the reality of their convictions by undergoing sacrifices. At the moment the country is needing labour in all directions, urgently needing it in particular in the field of agriculture, it would be far more economical, and far juster and fairer, that the willing services of these men should be employed in fields in which their labour is required, in which they would gladly give their work, than that they should be made the cause of embarrassment to the Army and a source of bitterness to the country by unjust and unfair treatment under martial law, which was never framed to deal with such cases, and which was meant for a far different set of conditions. I very much hope that the Government will make it quite clear in some way that they may be able to meet these difficulties, and, if not by the form proposed, by some other method which, partly by administration and by necessary legislative change, may alter the situation and remove from this country this grave stigma of injustice.
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I approach this subject from a point of view entirely different from that of my hon. Friend opposite, but although I am an out-and-out supporter of this Bill for present War purposes, I have felt it my duty to support some measure—I do not want to be precise—but some measure of alleviation of the difficulty in which the genuine conscientious objectors are placed. I have been in very close touch with three or four genuine cases—I do not want to put it higher than that, but in matters of conscience three or four genuine cases are very important—of conscientious objectors who are now undergoing very severe discipline and privation, and who as far as I know are prepared to go to extremities for conscience' sake.

  1021
  I do not share this prejudice myself. If I were of military age, and of military antecedents, I would very much rather be actively engaged in warlike operations than spending my time in this House. I do not share this prejudice. But there are a great number of other prejudices, perfectly honest ones, which also I do not share. We have during recent days seen an extraordinary uprising in Dublin, conducted as I believe by people acting under a conviction of some kind or another. I do not share it. If I may say so with great respect, my right hon. Friend near me (Sir F. Banbury) has deep-rooted convictions which I do not share, and which I find it almost impossible to understand.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I explain, then?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My difficulty with my right hon. Friend in the past has been his too frequent explanation of his views. We all have political prejudices, and some of us have religious prejudices, which may be very unreasonable and very uncomfortable from the point of view of other people, but they are entitled to respect. At all events they are entitled to respect in this country of ours, and always have been respected. I am not sure that I ardently support this proposed new Clause, and I will say quite frankly that I will not go into the Lobby against the Government in respect of any Amendment on this subject. I am one of those Members of this House who are prepared to support the Coalition Government so long as they are not insupportable. But I submit to my right hon. Friend opposite that there is a case here which can very easily be met. I venture to suggest that one step at least might be taken, even if it were only with a view to securing some kind of uniformity. There is an Amendment later on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. T. E. Harvey), which, in point of fact, practically embodies a suggestion which I at one time ventured to make to my right hon. Friend. But I am not particular myself what measure is adopted. All I submit humbly and respectfully is that in some way or other this scandal must be removed. I hear of men being immured in darkened cells. I hear of their being thrown into irons. I hear of their being deported to France. I can only say that in my knowledge of our country's history, I cannot associate these mehods of discipline and punishment with genuine con-
  1022
  scientious objection. We are all anxious that the bogus objector should be frustrated, but I venture with all submission to the Treasury Bench to suggest that here is a case which ought very properly to be met by this Committee.
  Mr. L. JONES: I wish to join in the appeal to the Government to take some action in regard to the genuine conscientious objectors in different parts of the country. The number of conscientious objectors is not very large, but there are a certain number of people whom no amount of compulsion by Parliament will compel to take part in anything that savours of military action, and this House and the Government must provide in a measure of this kind for dealing with those cases. One of the main difficulties which have arisen under the working of the last compulsion Act has been the inequality of treatment dealt out to men of exactly similar opinions when they have come before the tribunals. I have in mind the case of three brothers who are all conscientious objectors on religious grounds. I have known the family for thirty years. They were brought up in a strict Nonconformist sect, hating all war; taught by their father to hate war. They are all conscientious objectors on account of their religion and past teaching. They are an extremely obstinate family. These three brothers—aged eighteen, twenty-two, and twenty-five, I think—have all been before tribunals, and declared against undertaking any sort of military service. What has been their fate? This is what I want to put to the Government with most emphasis. The brothers are in different parts of the country. One secured absolute exemption at the hands of his tribunal. The second was granted exemption from combatant service by the local tribunal. He appealed for absolute exemption, to which he thought himself entitled, and the Appeal Tribunal, not content with dismissing the appeal, actually said that he must go for combatant service. The third was sent to combatant service by the local tribunal. I defy anybody to distinguish between the religious opinions of these brothers. They hold exactly the same views, and put them in practically the same way. I do not share their views at all. I am not a conscientious objector. If I were a young man, I suppose I should be fighting with the other young men now. Therefore I am not putting it from that point of view. But the view is there, it is real, and I say that it

  1023
  is absurd and wrong that this House should allow men to be treated in this way. This unequal treatment is arousing more resentment in the country than any other feature connected with the matter. One of the brothers has got total exemption and the other two are in a military prison awaiting court-martial. I do appeal to my right hon. Friend to do something now which shall give greater equality of treatment for men of identical opinions. These cases are not very numerous. Our people are a fighting people. I have never believed very greatly in the statement of there being a large number of slackers—as some Members imagine. The men who hang back from the fighting, unless there is a great temptation, in some way or other to keep them back, is not a very large number in this country. You are not dealing with a very large class, but you are dealing with a class with whom compulsion is the worst possible method of dealing. I say that the Government, and the House—if we are fit for our places here in this legislature—are bound to devise some system by which we shall utilise for national purposes the powers of these people, which you will never get by forcing them to become part of your military system.
  These three lads have all been taken from most useful work. Two of them are now in prison. One of them was employed on a farm School, where he was doing most necessary work for the country. The other was a gardener growing food for the country. They were doing necessary and useful work. If the work which they were doing was not satisfactory to the country it would be quite easy to draft them to work which they would be willing to undertake. All I want to say, and to say with all the emphasis I can command, is that you will never by compulsion make these men part of the military machine. You may put them into your military prisons. It is not them you will break. You will never get useful work out of them by trying to make them soldiers. You may get useful work out of them if you have the wit and wisdom to devise a scheme which will allow them to be employed apart from the military system. It ought not to be beyond the power and goodwill of this House to meet this comparatively small number of cases. They are not numerous, but they are very real. The failure to deal with them in the last Act created an amount of
  1024
  bitterness in the country that was considerable, and I implore the House not to allow this Bill to become an Act of Parliament without dealing more thoroughly with this question.
  Sir A. SPICER: I would not like to pass this matter by in silence. There are a great many of the conscientious objectors with whom at the present time I am not in sympathy, but there are those with whom I have been working for many years of my life, and with whom I hope to continue to work. I cannot, however, shut my eyes to the fact that there has been, I think, a good deal of injustice, because of inequality of treatment. There is no doubt that there was a great deal of misapprehension as to what was permitted to conscientious objectors under the first Act. A great many of those with whom I have been in correspondence overlooked completely the fact that the tribunals might give exemption. There is no doubt a very large number of objectors believed that the first Act enabled them to get exemption if only they could show that they were genuine conscientious objectors. On the other hand, I know from long experience and correspondence with them that a great many of them must have been uncommonly trying people for the tribunals to deal with. They are the sort of men who put one's back up, and I am not at all surprised that a great many of them do not in the least realise our military necessities.
  The correspondence that I get shows that they have not attempted really to read the statements that have been made by responsible Ministers in regard to the subject. They write on the evidence of those newspapers which are friendly to their side, and they do not, and will not, look at the other side. At the same time they are good and true men in their way, and we want to find some way by which they shall be enabled to do important work for the country at a sacrifice, for we have no right to let them off. If they are not willing to go into the fighting line, we have no right to let them off with an easy job. Personally, I maintain that we are fighting for our own liberty. Therefore the State is justified in taking away a man's liberty for the time being. At the same time, I do not think it ought to be beyond the wit and wisdom of our Government to find some equality of treatment that, as I say, shall not allow them off with an easy job, but shall give them something

  1025
  to do of a real importance to the State. After all, we have to do with all sorts of people in our individual lives. We come across these people who are difficult to deal with. We have to live with them, and we have to try and find some method which shall enable them to be employed usefully, even if they are not willing to go into the fighting line. I do hope the Government may be able to devise some method to meet this difficulty, which, in many cases, is growing to be a scandal in some parts of the country. I am not at all surprised that these people are difficult to deal with. So many of them will not realise the position of the country at the present time and the military necessities of the case.
  Major NEWMAN: I was very glad to hear that the hon. Member for West Leeds agrees with me as to the non-combatant corps. I made a fairly strong speech some weeks ago and the hon. Member gave me no support on that occasion. I am glad he supports me on this occasion. I confess that I did not think much of the proposal of the Government in respect to the non-combatant corps, and I am very glad that the hon. Member for West Leeds agrees with me it has been a failure. He tells us—I think quite frankly, fairly, and truthfully—that these conscientious objectors do wish to be employed in some form of useful service. They want to give willing service, to give heart service. I do not know exactly what he means by that. So far as I can make out; what they are willing to do is something in agriculture or forestry, or some form of local government service by relieving the men who have gone to the front. That is not a really noble ambition. We talk about agriculture being for the national service as an employment for men. It is not, really, because we have thousands of women coming forward now willing to do hard agricultural work. Surely the hon. Member for West Leeds must wish something better than that these men should merely shelter themselves from the bullets of the enemy by engaging themselves in agriculture. We have also the hon. Member for Luton, who talks about a scandal which must be removed, about conscientious objectors being put into darkened cells—some of them in irons—and others deported, to France. What does he mean by being deported to France? I have been deported to France as a soldier. He means that a man has been deported to France in a non-combatant corps. There
  1026
  is no case of deportation there. He was sent to a non-combatant corps specially devised for him, and, having done some short period of training, he has gone to do his duty as a soldier in that particular form in which he was ordered to do it. It is not a case of being deported.
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I must distinguish between a man who goes to France as a conscientious objector, hating the whole business, and probably wholly useless from any military point of view, and my hon. and gallant Friend who goes there in a martial spirit.
  Major NEWMAN: These men, when they go out to France, will be made use of for road-making and other things, not very glorious work, but still it will be work, and I say you cannot speak of a man being deported to France if put in a corps in England and ordered out to France. It is not fair to the British Army to talk of a man being deported to France wearing the uniform of the King. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) had a good deal to say, but let me remind him that we get before the tribunals a great many individuals with very queer consciences and not the clear consciences he talked about. For instance, a tribunal close to my Division had before them the case of a youth who had been employed as a clerk in the War Office, and in the War Office he would have remained if he had not been combed out by the process which a great many Departments are undergoing at the present time, and he had it up to him then to become a soldier, and he at once developed a conscience. Here is a man in the War Office who is combed out, and gets a conscience at once. He appeals on conscientious grounds, objects to even being given non-combatant service, and appeals to this Commission on work of national importance to get him a job which will take him away from non-combatant service to munition work. Is that really a fair case for a tribunal to have to deal with?
  Mr. L. JONES: May I point out that ten men who are hypocrites do not justify punishing or ill-treating one really conscientious man, and the difficulty of the problem, I agree, is to distinguish between the man who is a conscientious objector and the man who is a shirker.
  Major NEWMAN: Am I to gather from that that this particular gentleman was a humbug?
  Mr. JONES: I cannot tell you; it is your case, not mine.
  Major NEWMAN: If I may suggest, the only people to be pitied in the whole of this unfortunate business are the tribunals themselves, and therefore I welcomed the speech from the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench. You have a dozen, or perhaps less, local men drawn from quite ordinary walks of life, perhaps, and formed into a tribunal before whom come these people with a conscience—a perfectly new state of things—and these ordinary local men have got to deal with these gentlemen and their conscience. They are put in a very onerous and disagreeable position, and what we ought to do to-night, if we possibly can, is to devise some method to make the work of these tribunals easier when dealing with conscientious objectors. Only yesterday I had the honour and good fortune to introduce a large deputation of conscientious objectors from my Division who came to see me in this House. They were a gathering of about twenty—a mixed gathering, if I may so with respect. One was a Tolstoyian, one an Agnostic, two were Socialists, and others were, at any rate, men with consciences. They were electors of mine, but I do not know if they voted for me. I had an hour's very pleasant and interesting talk. We talked the thing round and round in every conceivable way. I put it to them very strongly what was the difficulty of these tribunals. Their complaint was against the tribunals. They said these tribunals did not give them a fair chance, and did not hear their evidence, and would not read the letters. One tribunal let a conscientious objector off, while another tribunal, perhaps only a few miles away, would not hear the case of a conscientious objector at all, and they wanted some uniformity of treatment. After a very long talk I drafted a Clause, which is on the Paper, and if I get the chance, or if the Chairman will allow me to move it, I shall very gladly move it. If it is carried it will, at any rate, give the tribunals some sort of a lead, and the conscientious objector some sort of idea of what he has got to do if he wants to get off. I notice the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) shaking his head. I only wish the deputation had seen him; then perhaps he would have put his name to that Clause as well. At any rate, the Clause would be a method which would help the tribunal. I confess I cannot vote for the new Clause
  1028
  moved by the hon. Member for Burnley, and I only trust I may have an opportunity of moving my own.
  Colonel HENDERSON: I have probably had as much experience in attending Appeal Tribunals as anyone in this House. It has been stated that there is a differential treatment before different tribunals. I certainly agree that there may be in different parts of England, but, so far as the South of England is concerned it is nearly always consistent. The difficulty which occurs is how these men can find employment of national importance, and I put a question to my right hon. Friend yesterday asking him that a list of these men might be kept and made available for employers who have work of national importance for them to perform. These men largely exist in the urban areas, and the work of national importance which appeals to me in the first instance is the production of food, and if something could be done to have an organised list, so that farmers, or persons producing food could avail themselves of the services of these conscientious objectors, I feel sure that these men would thereby be put to really good use. A tribunal presided over by a very well-known gentleman holding very different views from my own in politics, has at the times when I attended the tribunal over which he presided, always urged that these men were not to have employment in their own locality. Other people have got to be put to the discomfort of a foreign country, and he insisted that they should go well away from their own homes to do good work elsewhere, and that they must not be given any particular facilities for work near their own homes. I think there is a great deal in it. Incidentally, I would remark that I was rather struck at a tribunal I attended the other day to find that out of seven cases I heard tried three were conscientious objectors who held no particular religious views, and had married within the last four months. I cannot help thinking that the new state of matrimony had influenced their consciences, and I cannot help thinking that these men should not be given a particular advantage over men who have signified their willingness to fight; but I do hope where work of a useful nature can be found for them—and I say that agriculture has first claim upon them—they should be made available for those who are producing food for the country. I hope a list of men holding these views may be made available, and that men may

  1029
  be immediately put to what I believe to be very useful work, namely, to reinforce that class of the community which has already contributed, I believe, a very fair quota to the service of the State, I mean the industry of agriculture, and replace those men as far as possible.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I do not want to go over the ground which others have laid before the Committee this evening. The hon. Member in moving this Clause put many of the difficulties very clearly before the House. One of the great causes of discontent and dissatisfaction to those who were watching the proceedings of the tribunals and to the tribunals themselves is the great inequality of judgments and verdicts which are given as between one part of the country and another, and even as between adjoining districts. Another reason for the difficulty which has been experienced is that there was considerable haste in getting the tribunals to work and organised, and many decisions had to be given before full instructions were able to reach them from the Local Government Board. By his repeated new instructions the right hon. Gentleman has gradually made the course for the tribunals clearer and clearer, so that in many cases the decisions given in the last month have been much more uniform, and I contend more in the spirit in which it was intended the Act should be administered than the earlier decisions. But the fact remains that a very large number of tribunals have set themselves to agree, when a conscientious objector proves his case, it was not what degree of exemption he should have, but he should just have exemption from combatant service, and that was taken as a matter of course. That has led to a great many difficulties. Some men are quite ready to join the Royal Army Medical Corps or to give non-combatant service, but none of these things meet the case, and the country does not sympathise with the position of these men, although they are ready to render service to the State provided it is not military service. There have been one or two plans. One or two channels are being used for some of these men, and tribunals are now referring them to the Pelham Committee and other similar bodies who devise or find work suitable for this class of objectors. In the interests of true economy it is much better to find these men work they can do in England where labour is short than sending them abroad. It is
  1030
  not a case of deporting them abroad. I know some of them have had to be conducted abroad under escort.
  Major NEWMAN: They are liable to be shot.
  Mr. WILSON: Yes, they are liable to be shot, and that is what has been causing so much anxiety. Not long ago an attack of measles stopped a number of them going across under conditions in which they would have refused service. I am now speaking from an economic point of view. With regard to these committees or the efforts of individual tribunals to satisfy the applicants by authorising work of national importance, I contend that it is not possible to carry that out either by the tribunals or any independent committee that is set up, because they are up against the question that if a man says, "I am doing work of national importance and I claim exemption," they have to face the question either of refusing him or allowing him to stay in his work of national importance. The man draws the wages he has been getting hitherto, and that places him in a better position than the man who has had to enlist as a soldier. But they are not bound to leave a man where he lives. A tribunal cannot undertake the administrative work of shifting a man to another part of the country even if they give him time to find a job himself. Even then he may get a job just as remunerative as his other job. I contend that a practical test for conscience is whether the man is willing to make a sacrifice. Take, for example, the committee I have been working upon for several days a week. There we are up against the difficulty at once. If we put these men on to transport work, dock work, or farm work, we have to face the fact that we are giving them wages which are better than the soldiers are receiving, or else we are putting them out at a lower wage, which is sweating the labour market,, and that is an undue advantage to the employer who takes them. It is the Government and the country's finances that ought to benefit by these conscientious objectors. Only a Government Department ad hoc, the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, are able to undertake gang labour. I would suggest that you should have transport brigades or dock brigades, pay them no more than soldiers, and when you come to married men you will have to give a separation allowance, but take them away from their

  1031
  home, put them to some work of national importance, and see that their lot, from a financial point of view, is not better than the soldiers. That is a test which the Government alone can apply, and no committee is able to do it without trespassing in one direction or another.
  Mr. LONG: How can we do that? It is an extremely interesting suggestion, but will my right hon. Friend go on and explain how, having set a man to this particular class of work in those conditions we are to keep him there, what is to be the treatment and the method? All these things come back to the power of compulsion. We may order the men to go and order that they shall not be paid more than a certain sum; but supposing they dislike the work, are we to resort to compulsion, which means, of course, shooting them? You are going to say to them, "You must stick to that job," and if he does not do it you must either put him in prison, shoot him, or let him go.
  Mr. WILSON: I feel to a certain extent that my proposal may be open to criticism.
  Mr. LONG: I do not know. I am not sure.
  Mr. WILSON: But I thought I made it plain that I am speaking on behalf of the willing server who says, "I am willing to give service to my country, providing it is civil service and not under the military machine." Personally, I should have thought that a Government Department, either the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade, or a Department organised for the purpose, was just as well able to manage these men and just as economically likely to manage them as the prison warder or the military officer at the front. The War Office has to organise them by six months' training, but any organisation the Government started for providing them with civil work could be created in six weeks. The exemption which they would receive from the tribunal would certainly be conditional upon their obeying orders and upon their remaining on this civil work of national importance. There are some, I quite admit, though they are not in the majority, who would say, "I am not able to render either military or civil service." I am not speaking of them. By weeding out those willing to serve, and turning their labour to profitable account in the country, I believe the Government would have the sympathy of the country
  1032
  with them instead of antagonising it by mixing up the willing and the unwilling and putting them all in prison, or going to the extent of trying to compel or force them into unprofitable labour which they are unwilling to do.
  Mr. MORRELL: I would like to say, in the first place, how very much gratified everyone must be at the tone of the Debate with regard to these men, and our hope is that it may really lead to some solution of the problem. It is a problem which the Government ought not, and cannot properly, leave alone. You may break the bodies of these men, but you cannot destroy their spirit, and, if there is anything like persecution, it will finally react to the disadvantage of the country. I do not want to pursue that, because it may be a controversial topic, and I do not want to use language which may be of a controversial kind. I would like to put three points with which I think the Government might well be asked to deal. In the first place, something might be done to improve the procedure of the tribunals. They have had a very difficult task, and a great many that I have come across have done their work well. There are other instances where they have done their work badly, but I have never brought a general charge against them. I would venture to suggest that some of those temporary circulars which the right hon. Gentleman has sent out might in time, at any rate, be partially put as Regulatons, whch would more or less have a statutory binding on these tribunals.
  The second point has been dealt with already at great length in this Debate. It is acknowledged on all hands that this idea of non-combatant service under military authority is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the conscientious objector, and I want to know whether you could not have some alternative service of national importance under civil control for those who will not accept non-combatant service as meeting their case. There would always be the condition that if they refused to do the work they would be dealt with as men who were liable to imprisonment. I believe that a large number of these men would be perfectly willing to do work of national importance such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Henderson) has described if they were convinced that it was under civil control and not under military control. I cannot see why it would be very difficult for the Government either by a new Clause in

  1033
  this Bill or even by administrative Order to see that carried out. You might still have the Non-Combatant Corps for those conscientious objectors who say they will accept non-combatant service, but would it not be better to face this problem and find civil work of national importance for those who find it against their conscience to put on khaki and go into the Army—I do not agree with them—and who refuse and will not submit? Let me give two instances. Two brothers, dairy farmers, carrying on useful work, were given non-combatant work in the Army. They refused to do it, and they are now in gaol doing no work at all, when they might be doing useful work producing butter for the nation. Is it not a waste that these men should be kept in irons in the cells because you offer a form of service which will not meet their case? You may say that they are unreasonable and obstinate, but is it not worth while, if you set out to meet the case of the conscientious objector, to endeavour to do it more thoroughly than you are doing it at present?
  There is one more point with which we might reasonably ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal. There is the case of men who have been before a tribunal, who have not got any relief, who are now in the Army, and who have proved the sincerity of their conscientious objection by the fact that they are willing to undergo these penalties and this persecution—you can hardly call it by any other name—rather than obey orders which they believe to be wrong. These men, although the tribunal may not have admitted it, have proved by their suffering and endurance that they are, in fact, conscientious objectors. I think we might reasonably ask the right hon. Gentleman not to retry their cases, but at any rate to extricate them and bring them before some other Court and give them the choice of some work of an alternative character. Then, if they are still obstinate, nobody would ask that they should be let off altogether. Let them be imprisoned in a civil prison. By all means punish them for refusing to be soldiers if it is the law that they should be soldiers, but punish them by civil means and not by trying to make them soldiers against their will, because if you do you will bring considerable dishonour upon this country by appearing at any rate to be guilty of persecution of a very disagreeable kind. I am perfectly certain, and I am sure everybody in this House must be certain, that it would be to the advantage of the Army—
  1034
  all the military authorities I have come across admit it—to get this problem dealt with once and for all satisfactorily. They do not want to have these men on their hands, threatening the discipline of their corps or unit. I know the commanding officers of these regiments do not want to have the disagreeable task of having these men brought before them and having to put them into irons when, however wrong-headed they may be, they are acting for conscience sake. I do, for the sake of the Army as well as for the sake of Parliament and the country, make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to find some way out of this problem with which we are now faced.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am very sorry I had not the privilege of hearing the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, but I gather the line he took from a reference which I have heard made to that speech. I do not suppose there are any two Members in this House who know more about the difficulties of this question than my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) and myself, because on the Appeal Tribunal we have had a number of very difficult and troublesome cases to deal with. We have endeavoured most conscientiously to examine into every case. We have been most particular in having the papers carefully read by two of the members of the tribunal before we sat upon a case. We have not only done that, but where we have had some doubt as to whether or not the objection was really honestly taken we have had the man before us and have cross-examined him, I hope, in a very courteous way. There are two obvious difficulties before us in this matter. There are certain conscientious objectors who are perfectly content to be excluded from combatant service. But there is another class who will not undertake either combatant or non-combatant service. There are certain religious bodies which permit non-combatant service, while others exclude all kinds of service under military control. There are men who go so far as to object to any kind of service, and some are grossly illogical in respect of the fact that they work in munition factories, and the religious body to which they belong does not seem to take any exception to their doing it. We have actually had to deal with a case where a man born and brought up in Birmingham has thought it natural to engage in the production

  1035
  of shells and guns, and it has never occurred to him that that was contrary to his professions of faith. That man appealed, but we left him where he was as we thought that, after all, he was performing the best possible service.
  There are cases where we are bound to exempt the objector, and there we have done our best to satisfy ourselves that the objector is perfectly honest. The Act of Parliament tells us to do that, and the House of Commons intended that we should do it. We have conscientiously acted upon that. That is all very well, but when we relieve the men from both combatant and non-combatant service we are faced with the difficulty of finding him employment on work of national importance. We feel that we require some assistance in that. In many cases what, we do is to give the individual a month's law to find an occupation of national importance which we can accept as such. But then the difficulty arises that you cannot follow that man, and I am going to propose an Amendment on behalf of the Central Appeal Tribunal— I am sorry it is not on the Paper—with the object of getting us out of the difficulty and to enable us to follow that man when we have sent him to some work of national importance in order to see that he either remains at it or, if he leaves it. that he goes to some other business which we can accept as being within the same category. We are faced at once with this difficulty, unless the House of Commons agrees, as I hope it may do, to relieve us of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the original Act, which was put into that Act in the interests of the workmen, so that they may not be compelled at a specified place. We are under that Subsection precluded entirely from saying That a man must remain in the same kind of occupation. We cannot specify that he shall go to this person, or that person, and remain there, and unless that stipulation is cancelled in so far as the conscientious objector is concerned, the difficulty will remain, and it will be impossible for us to carry out, as we desire to do, the provisions of the Act of Parliament. There is no intention of using our powers in the least degree harshly.
  I think the hon. Member for Leeds will agree that in these cases the objector ought to be put to a certain amount of inconvenience. If a man is teaching mathematics he will not suffer, although
  1036
  it may be considered—I do not so consider it—to be a business of national importance. He will be allowed to remain where he was. I do not think that is sufficient. I think he ought to be removed elsewhere. He ought to be called upon to make some sacrifice, and not be left in the position to do his work comfortably at home. I listened with the greatest interest to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Wilson), and I did so for this reason. Only to-day we invited Mr. Pelham, Chairman of the Pelham Committee, to meet us in order to see whether we could not come to some kind of understanding about adumbrating a system by which to secure that these men can be placed in some business nationally useful, and not only that, but to keep a register of them, keep an eye on them, have constant reports about them, and, if they leave the employment to which they are sent, find some other work for them which can be equally approved by the Central Appeal Tribunal. I think we ought to have a committee or tribunal of some kind set up to do this, because it would be too big a task for us to undertake. A system of proper registration and proper control and inspection would involve a large amount of labour, which I know Mr. Pelham and his committee, anxious as they are to discharge it, fear would snow them under. I would, therefore, press upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of considering the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman for Worcester, and as far as the Central Tribunal are concerned, I am sure they will give every possible assistance in carrying it to a satisfactory conclusion.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. LONG: It is a great satisfaction to me that this Debate has been conducted in substance and in tone in a way which must bring relief to all of us who realise that this is one of the most controversial questions that can be debated by Parliament. It is a question which is not only controversial, but which is probably less agreeable to debate in Parliament than almost any other question. It is a question which is closely allied with those religious differences which occasionally divide Members of the House of Commons. All of us invariably feel that the House of Commons is probably the last place in the world which we would select in order to discuss those questions, which

  1037
  are very much the personal possessions of the individual rather than the property of the community as a whole. I think I may claim that I have had as much experience of the difficulties of the conscientious objector question as anybody in the Committee during the last few weeks. I have had it before me in every phase, and I realise its difficulties, perhaps, more than some of those who have spoken to-night, although all of those who have spoken to-night have appreciated the difficulty, and have approached the question with an honest and a sincere desire to find a solution.
  May I first of all summarise the criticisms of or objections to the present system which have been stated to-night. There was the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey), whose speech, unfortunately for myself, I did not hear because I happened to be absent from the Committee at the time. I have heard him often on this question, and have discussed it with him, and I know, as everybody knows, that he is absolutely sincere with regard to it, and that he is really anxious to help those who believe that they are doing their duty in the highest sense of the word in refusing to perform any service which is connected with militarism in any shape or form. Therefore, I very much regret to have missed his speech, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was good enough to make notes of it for me. I gather that his two main criticisms were that the tribunals vary, that the opportunity of the adoption of work of national importance is not to any extent largely used, and that the fact is ignored that many of these people object altogether to military control over the service they are called upon to render. I am very glad to find that, generally speaking, there has been no tendency to attack or condemn the tribunals. It is quite true that their decisions vary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but if their decisions vary, so do the conscientious objectors' vary. I can assure the Committee that if they had read, as I have had to read, long reports in different newspapers—it is not enough to read the report in one paper if you want to get an accurate representation of the facts—if they had read, as the hon. Gentleman and I have read, long reports in different newspapers of these inquiries where they have been held in public, they would find in many cases that if the con-
  1038
  scientious objectors failed to obtain what they regard as justice, the fault, if fault there be, rests with them and not with the tribunals.
  I can assure the Committee that many of these so-called conscientious objectors —whether they are those for whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds pleads, or whether they belong to those who seek to take advantage of the conscientious objection as a means of escape, I am not going to say—come before a tribunal, they lecture it, they assume an air of superiority, and they claim that they have some divine right to assume a position superior to that adopted by the great majority of their fellow-citizens. It is not extraordinary that in these circumstances the tribunals very often deal with their cases in a peremptory manner and that the result is a feeling of injustice on their part, a feeling of great irritation on the part of the tribunals, and the impression derived by Members of this House and the public that there is something wrong somewhere. As has happened to-night, when there is something wrong somewhere, it is the Government who have to find a way out and who are to be criticised if they do not find it. We have had these criticisms from the hon. Member for West Leeds. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth) made a very interestiing speech, in which he concurred with those who realised the difficulties, and said he was not prepared —I am very glad to hear it—to vote for this particular Amendment, but ended his speech by saying that the Government must find a way out. Through all the speeches it really is the same thing—the Government has got to find their way out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I will come to that in a moment. The Government are entitled to ask that, in finding a way out, they should receive more practical assistance than they have received to-night. Hon. Members are very fond, in various Debates here and outside, of explaining that the Government is a collection of the stupidest people they have ever come across, and some of them are not averse from declaring that they themselves have a monopoly of all the brain-power. In these circumstances it is not unreasonable that I should ask for a larger contribution to the solution of the difficulty and a smaller contribution to the statement of the difficulty than we have had this evening.

  1039
  There were two speeches we have had to-night to which I listened with unqualified pleasure and which really did put the difficulty in a fairer light than it has been put before. One was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer), and the other that of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney really hit the nail on the head when he said that the main cause of the inequality that we all admit, namely, the want of uniformity in the decisions of the tribunals is that the tribunals are in a difficulty owing to the manner in which the petition is put before them. One speaker to-night, in replying to an interruption, said that you must distinguish whether the man on whose behalf you are speaking is a genuine objector or not. If anybody would produce a formula by which we could distinguish between the genuine conscientious objector who is acting from high motives—although they are motives I am wholly unable to understand —who says that his conscience compels him to refuse to do anything of a military nature, and the man who takes advantage of it as an excuse to avoid fighting, to which he has an objection for some other reasons, we should have solved more than half this difficulty. We have had two sets of suggestions. One is that we ought to find employment. There is no difficulty about finding employment. Men are wanted for work. In almost every industry in the country there is room for more labour than they can get at present, and any conscientious objector who obtains relief from the tribunal on the condition that he is engaged on work of national importance can find work of national importance if he is willing to do it. There is no sort of difficulty in his way.
  But then comes the question on what terms are you going to send these men to that kind of employment. Let the Committee bear in mind what is the problem that we are asked to face. It is that men for conscience sake decline to bear their share of the common burden of citizenship, the burden, which ought to fall upon every man according to his strength, equally of defending the privileges, the liberty, the rights, the lives of his country and of his people. They decline to do that for conscience sake. Then we are told that you should pass them into employment. I am dealing now with cases which get relief
  1040
  from the tribunals, cases where the tribunals admit that the contention is sustained and they give relief. Then we are told there is difficulty in finding them work. There is no difficulty in finding them work. There is work of national importance waiting for every man to do who is willing to do it. But what happens? In nine cases out of ten the work which the individual gets is not work which he thinks to be of national importance for him to perform. Here is one case. A man occupies a respectable position in a leading profession. He is a conscientious objector. He appears before the tribunal, which gives him exemption on condition that he takes up certain work. He does not rest content with the decision. He writes to say this is not what I regard as the kind of national work to which I ought to be sent. It is all very well to say, as some hon. Members do, "Deal with that man at once. You can withdraw his certificate." But if you withdraw his certificate are you meeting the difficulty that my hon. Friends have raised and which is supposed to be met by this Amendment. The conscientious objector says, "I will not serve in any service which is under military control." Then we have to find work that he will do. You have no system at all, and it is no good telling the Government we ought to find it. How are you going to find it? What do you propose? Behind the law there is force, and it is no good saying you can tell a man he is to do particular work unless you can secure that he is doing it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) drew as his illustration work that is done under prison drill, and so on. But if we are to devise something in the shape of penal settlements, is it possible to do this in the middle of a war? I am not seeking to evade the responsibility of government, but I am trying to make the Committee understand what are the practical difficulties that come before us every day, and if they appreciate that they will appreciate the reason why up to the present, at all events, we have not been able to find a solution. The difficulty in regard to the men who get exemption is infinitesimal, because there is work for them to do. If they are willing to do it there is no difficulty at all. The difficulty disappears. Do not let the Committee run away with the idea that the great majority of these men are men who are willing to do any task that you set them,

  1041
  and to do it in the same conscientious way that they make their objection to military service. A great many of them raise every sort of difficulty. They say the work is not work that is suited to them. They say the work is not work of national importance. My right hon. Friend suggests that we should form them into brigades and send them to work for certain purposes. I ask the Committee to consider what would happen if you form these men into brigades when you have no control over them, no power of discipline and no power of punishment. Unless the Committee are prepared to say that we are to establish disciplinary divisions or brigades or penal settlements to which these people are to be sent, they must realise that the difficulty of compelling the men to work is as great as the difficulty of compelling them to fight.
  Mr. L. JONES: No.
  Mr. LONG: It is all very well to say no. But will anybody tell me if a man says, "I will not work," what we are to do? Send him to gaol?
  Mr. L. JONES: I only said "No" because the right hon. Gentleman said the difficulty of making these men do civil work was as great as making them do military work, and I think that to be a great overstatement. They object to military discipline, no doubt, but the real difficulty is in making them part of the military machine.
  Mr. LONG: No, if that was the case this problem would be quite easily solved. But that really is not the case. It is not true that the majority of these people object to military control. They claim to have a conscientious objection to military service. Well, those who are given complete exemption, and on whose behalf a great deal has been said to-night, have got work waiting for them. Why does anyone complain of that? Why does any single man who has got absolute exemption find anybody here to-night to make a complaint for him?
  HON. MEMBERS: Nobody does.
  Mr. LONG: Do I understand that nobody does? I am very glad to hear that. There is no complaint then in regard to those who have got complete exemption on condition they are performing national service.
  Mr. SNOWDENmade a remark that was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LONG: Oh, yes, the exemption is dependent upon the man performing national service. I am discussing this on the line on which it has been discussed to-night. Are we to assume that men are to get exemption on conscientious grounds and be allowed to do nothing for the service of the State? If that is the condition, I am not going to waste a moment of time in considering it; that is a problem which I will leave to others. That has not been discussed by anyone here to-night. We have been discussing the way in which you are to find work of national importance for men who object to military service. I say that for the majority of these men there is work waiting for them to do. These are not the real difficulties. These are not the cases which hon. Gentlemen who undertake the cause of the conscientious objector really have in mind. What have all the questions referred to that have been addressed to me and others? They have referred to the men who, as thy say, are in military gaols; the men who have been before the tribunals, who have failed to obtain relief at the hands of the tribunals, and we are. asked to find some special way of dealing with them. Why? This question of the recalcitrant recruit is not a new one. There are plenty of men who joined the Army voluntarily, long before compulsion, and who have found the conditions of service irksome, and they have objected to give service. I do not doubt for a single instant that if you once establish the principle in this House that a man who has had the opportunity given him of appearing before a tribunal, whose case has been fairly heard as it has been in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, and has been sent to the Service, should be taken from the Army and treated in some special way, you are going to spread this throughout the whole Army. I repeat what I have said. I regret more than I can say the form which this agitation has taken on behalf of the conscientious objector. I am not blaming or criticising anybody. It is for those who desire to advocate that course to makeup their minds as to the best way in which they are going to do it, but this agitation has done incalculable harm to the cause of the genuine conscientious objector.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: What agitation?
  Mr. LONG: All the various societies, the floods of questions in this House, and the representations that persons who object to serve their country ought to be

  1043
  protected by their country. What has been the result? Is it not inevitable—this is not a question which ought to raise controversy—that if you once let this idea get abroad that a man has only got to say, "I object conscientiously to serve in the Army," any man who finds himself called on to serve and wants to escape may try to rank himself among the conscientious objectors? If this movement had been confined to personal representations in the first instance, if there had only been a combined quiet effort to meet the practical difficulties connected with the real conscientious objector, I do not believe that there would have been any real trouble in dealing with their case, but now you have got a case which is quite different. It is not only the conscientious person who honestly objects to serve for whom you have got to find a way out. You have got the case of men who say, "If these men get off under this pretext, why should not we?" The difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred is the real difficulty. It is not to find work, or to find a tribunal, or to find some new procedure. It is to draw a distinction between the man who is an honest, though, I think, most misguided, conscientious objector and the man who adopts his faith because he finds it a convenient way to avoid service which he does not want to perform. That is the real difficulty. You are not manufacturing conscientious objectors by your agitation. They are probably not more numerous than before; but you are increasing the number of men who are anxious to adopt their excuses as a means of escape, and you are making the difficulty of the Government infinitely greater than it was before. The only suggestion that I have heard that offers a reasonable ground for fresh action is the one suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). It might be possible to arrange a committee which could act in the manner in which he described. I do not promise it. I have been doing my utmost. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friends the Member for Leeds and the Member for York. I do not want, and nobody in the Government wants, the horror of men who for conscience sake are unwilling to serve being thrown into jail for a long time. I recognise that there are men who are serving their country far better. But at present I can see no solution except going before the tribunal, and in special cases, where the tribunal has acted with injustice, if the cases are
  1044
  brought before me, I am willing to bring them before the members of the tribunal to endeavour if I can to secure a re-hearing. Beyond that I can find no solution, and I should deceive the Committee if I held out any hopes that I have a remedy which would meet the difficulty—the reality of which I recognise the serious character, but which has got to be faced —a practical difficulty, which can only be dealt with by the action of the tribunals.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have listened with extreme attention to the speeches which have been made, and I listened with special interest to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. If I may say so, I feel very deeply grateful for the spirit in which the discussion has taken place this evening. For this is one of the most difficult and painful controversies that has been aroused in connection with the whole subject of compulsion. Many hon. Gentlemen who made speeches to-night stated that they had no sympathy whatever with the position of the conscientious objector; they do not share his views; they do not approve his views; but they went on, nevertheless, to make most moderate and, I think, most helpful speeches towards the solution of the difficulty. I wish to be equally frank and candid with the Committee, and to say that I adhere entirely both to the position and views of the Member for Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey), who has put the case of the conscientious objector with so much sincerity and so much feeling on other occasions. I feel so deeply on this subject that I always speak upon it with the greatest reluctance. One always regrets, I think, having made strong statements, lest those strong statements have done harm or injustice. I am myself very conscious of the enormous difficulty with which the tribunals are face to face. I suppose I have said as strong things about the tribunals as any Member of the House. I say frankly that I believe many of the tribunals have been struggling with a difficulty almost beyond the power of any tribunal to deal with properly under the present system. I am quite sure that they have tried to do their duty sincerely. The principal Act is very complicated, and on this subject many interpretations are given, and there is even uncertainty as to whether the power of exemption is contained in this Act. I think it is perfectly clear that Parliament intended this exemption to be given, but it does not exist on the lines of the tribunals. I

  1045
  repeat that I am deeply sensible of the enormous difficulty of this question which the tribunals have to face. I do not desire to offer any criticism whatever of the spirit in which the great Departments of State have endeavoured administratively to deal with this problem. I think, if my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will allow me to say so, that the circulars that he has issued and that the advice which he has given to the tribunals in his circulars would in themselves very largely have solved this problem, if only those circulars had the authority of the Regulations made under the Act. The right hon. Gentleman asked for suggestions. Grave and great as the problem is, I think he overstated the difficulty of solving it.
  There is throughout the country, in the widely differing schools of thought on this subject, all the elements which make for a satisfactory solution. There is good will on the part of many of the people directly concerned. The genuine conscientious objector desires to help his country and to help mankind and to sacrifice himself for mankind; to spend himself for mankind in every possible way. Long before the principal Act was passed, many of these men were eager volunteers to help to repair some of the ravages, some of the destruction and of the suffering caused by war. There is nothing these men would count a higher or greater privilege than the opportunity of proving, without reward of any kind, that they were "willing to undertake any service, however lowly and however arduous, which was outside the military machine and military direction, aid therefore did not conflict with their principles and to enable them to keep faith with their consciences. This being their spirit and these being their views, with good will on each side, I say without any hesitation to my right hon. Friend, that there is really no reason under the conditions that exist why a satisfactory solution should not be reached. It is a very old problem. It was a problem that began immediately after the death of Christ, and it is a problem with which we have always been familiar in this country in connection with all kinds of subjects. We have in the past, I believe to the eternal honour of the country and to the lasting benefit of the country and of manhood, honoured the scruples of conscience. I believe it is desired by us today to respect the scruples of conscien-
  1046
  tious persons of whose sincerity we are convinced. That being so, I say that we can reach with good will a solution of this problem. I will only offer this final suggestion. My right hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that there is a considerable number of these men who refuse to do any work. My right hon. Friend will find that the bulk of this problem relates to men who, though they cannot assist in the military machine will yet do any work good for the country that is outisde that machine. If he will devise some means by which the conscientious objector who does not get absolute exemption is referred to a Committee, or to a Department of State, or to some authority set up by the Government to supervise, approve, and organise the work that he can render to the community, he will have solved the greater part of this problem, prevented this painful subject from attaining greater dimensions, and taken a great step towards solving also many social and economic problems.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I had not intended to take part in this discussion, although I have been very deeply interested in it. The Debate was going so remarkably well from our point of view that I thought that Members like myself who might be considered as extremists on the question might possibly do more harm than good by intervention. But one or two observations made by the President of the Local Government Board induce me to offer one or two comments. The right hon. Gentleman began by a defence of the tribunals. I have been something of a critic of the conduct of the tribunals, but my criticism has never been wholesale and universal. I am quite ready to admit— indeed, I admit it with gratitude—that many tribunals have regarded their duties in the most conscientious manner and have been most anxious to administer the Act in a fair and impartial way. But that testimonial certainly cannot be given to a very considerable number of tribunals. The defence of the tribunals took the form of putting the blame for any grievance that might have been created upon the applicants for exemption, whose manner members of tribunals have reported to the right hon. Gentleman was very irritating and exasperating. Surely that is a very weak excuse for the, in many cases, illegal, and, in a far larger number of cases, unjustifiable conduct and decisions of the tribunals. Most of the grievances have taken this form—that the tribunals

  1047
  refuse to give adequate consideration to the cases. In many instances the tribunals have disposed of the application in one or two minutes. They have refused to hear the applicant's statement and in an enormous number of cases they have refused to hear material witnesses who were in a position to give evidence of an important and substantial character. The right hon. Gentleman said that if somebody could suggest some practical way of distinguishing the genuine conscientious objector from the man who was not genuine he would make a great contribution to the solution of this difficult question. May I say that one of the best ways of doing that is to take the evidence of reputable persons that know the applicant. There is an Amendment to that effect on the Paper, and I trust that when we reach it it will receive the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. A great many grievances are due to the fact that the tribunals have in a great many cases, refused to hear the evidence of ministers of religion, Sunday-school superintendents and teachers, who have known the applicant for a great many years. I come now to the important question of work of national importance. The right hon. Gentleman made what to me was a very surprising statement. If I understood him correctly that statement was in direct conflict with the very important and admirable regulations and instructions issued just after the first Bill was passed. I understood him to say that absolute exemption from combatant or from non-combatant service would only be given on condition that the applicant was engaged in work of national importance.
  Mr. LONG: No, no. I was discussing the case of exemption contingent on national service. I was not dealing with the other case at all.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman, then, must have misunderstood the objection I made. I am very glad I mentioned the matter, because it makes it clear. The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that under the Act absolute exemption—"unconditional" would perhaps be the better word—absolute and unconditional exemption can be given by the tribunal. As a matter of fact, there have been quite a number of such cases. It was very unfortunate that the power of the tribunals to grant exemption, conditional upon the person being employed in work of national importance, was not fully
  1048
  known in the early days of the tribunals. These tribunals had been at work many weeks when they became aware of the fact, and a good many of those who are now suffering are suffering because they refused to accept the certificate which was then given by the tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that I know something about a good many of these conscientious objectors. I am personally acquainted with as many of them as, perhaps, any Member of this House. Therefore my opinion about what I may describe as the degree of their conscientious objection is of some little value. Placing my opinion, knowledge, and experience to the fore, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that those who have refused to accept conditional exemption constitute a great majority of this class. In my opinion that is not so. On the contrary, they constitute a very small number indeed. May I give a very important fact in support of that opinion? At present there is a Non-Combatant Corps in North Wales. There has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman—certainly to the Under-Secretary for War— a week or so ago, a memorial signed by no fewer than seventy of the very men—all conscientious objectors. That memorial, asked that their cases might be reconsidered. They were, they said, willing to undertake work of national importance. There was set up against the name of each, man the kind of work he was qualified to do. In every case it was work of a most important character—certainly work of the utmost national importance—agriculture, engineering, mining, electrical engineering, joinery, and the like. It is the height of folly at a time like this that these very men should be putting the country to the expense of courts-martial, and be detained in prison when they might be rendering, very valuable service to the community. Now I have this practical suggestion to make, and the right hon. Gentleman asked for practical suggestions. I use the illustration I have just given in order further to illustrate my point. It maybe said that it is very difficult from an administrative point of view to deal with the men who have already been put into-the Army, but I do not think it is. There is a Clause in the Act which entitles the holder of a certificate to claim from the tribunal a rehearing. The word used in the Act is "review" of his case. I understand that that right is not confined to

  1049
  those who are outside the military organisation, but that those who are in the Army are equally entitled to it, and therefore facilities might be given to these men who are already in the Army, and who are proving so obstinate and difficult, to have their non-combatant certificates reviewed, and the decision might be to put them on work of national importance.
  There are two problems here involved. There are two classes, roughly speaking, of conscientious objectors. There are what we might call the out-and-outers—those who refuse to be organised in war time even for civil work under civil authority. I admit the difficulty of dealing with these men, but by far the larger body are men who fully appreciate the present national situation and who are willing to do what they conscientiously can do to help the country in this great difficuty. They constitute, in my opinion, the overwhelming majority of these men, and, therefore, if we could begin first and immediately by dealing with that problem on the lines of offering these men work of national importance, the number who remain would be small—from the military point of view altogether negligible—and when we have solved the first part of the question I do not think it would be impossible to deal with the rest. That is one practical suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman. Although he has not given us what I really expected, in view of the tone and character of the Debate, I think he had a fine opportunity of making some concession, but I have been encouraged by his tone. It is an advance on what we got the last time I raised this question. With the extension of this Act this difficulty is not going to get less, but is going to get a good deal greater. There are, from my own personal knowledge, a very large body of conscientious objectors who are now going to be called up for military service. Therefore, I would press the urgency of this. Let us have some practical scheme devised, ready to be put into operation at once, so that this difficulty will not arise in the case of the men who are going to be brought under this Bill.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should not like this portion of the Debate to conclude without raising one or two points which have occurred to me on the much vexed question of the conscientious objectors. I suppose that we all feel ourselves greatly perplexed by this question, and wish that the conscientious objectors of Europe
  1050
  numbered 100 per cent. of the population, and then many of our troubles would be at an end. If that be accepted as a truism, may we not stiffen the respect which some of us have for the true real high principle of the conscientious objector if we may be permitted to see in him the forerunner of a nobler and a loftier future? I admit the number of them is a small one, but it is because I regard him from that standpoint that my mind reaches out in all possible directions to see if I can possibly save this small bit of the salt of the earth from this engulfing strife. In pondering over these various Military Service Acts I have felt what may be regarded by some of my colleagues as strange, that perhaps we may have made a mistake and added needlessly to our difficulties of legislation because we had not the courage to boldly recognise the existence amongst us of a certain number of those who are constitutionally timid. I believe a number of those are to be found amongst what are classed as con-scientious objectors. Let me not be misunderstood. There is a very clear and sufficient line of demarcation between the one class and the other, but even for those poor abject persons I am bound to express some real sympathy. I cannot conceive any worse position in which a human being can be thrust than to be asked to take up a lethal weapon to engage in war when he is of this particular temperament and constitution and shudders at the very thought of strife.
  11.0 P.M.
  Let us pass from those considerations and bring ourselves rapidly to note the courageous way in which, after a long and very fatiguing Debate, the President of the Local Government Board addressed himself to-night to the suggestions thrown out by several hon. Members of this House for the constitution of a machine which should provide some means whereby all those of the two classes of objectors who are worth regarding at all by us elderly Gentlemen who are disposing of the life and service of those who are younger may be allocated their proper contribution to the service of the State as citizens of it. Every man owes a debt to the State, and every man ought to be ready to perform it. That, however, is only stating the problem in another way and offering no solution. When the President of the Local Government Board made a reply to the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) and the points which

  1051
  were added in the delightful contribution of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and others, I listened to him with even more than that constant regard I always pay to his never stinted utterances in this House, and I wondered whether he might not presently have arrived at some conclusion upon a problem which I know has engaged him day by day and by night for a long time. I cannot help feeling, however far he has gone in forecasting a scheme for the relief of those who find themselves in difficulties, he may easily find himself presently, if he travels heedlessly along that road, in the seductive company of the hon. Member for Black burn (Mr. Snowden) who faces me to-night. The suggestion has been made that we should set up some machinery—some thing might be done along those lines—in the form of a Committee. Some of us half-employed persons in the House might be clothed with adequate powers to discover what are those classes of employment to which we might draft these difficult persons and enable them to make their proper quota in this time of national distress to the national cause. He spoke of agriculture. Supposing you have an operative goldsmith, or a carpenter, or a jeweller, or a clerk, you cannot put him, or a brigade of such at once into agriculture. Agriculture, I need not tell hon. Members, is by no means an unskilled occupation, and you would, to use a vulgarism, "raise Cain" in the agricultural districts if you dumped down upon them any considerable body of these men and hoped thereby to solve the acute problem which the injudicious working of the Act has already laid upon the country. Supposing, on the other hand, you decided that you would employ these men upon dock labour, another sorely—
  The CHAIRMAN: I agreed three hours ago to allow an unusual width of debate upon this Amendment, but that did not mean that we should go into the details and proposals of that kind. I must ask the hon. Member really to deal with the suggestion set out in the Amendment, and followed by other hon. Members.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I am glad to have your guidance. I was working in my mind upon the lines, as I understood, of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) which speaks of the
  1052
  condition being the performance of some work of national importance that does not involve service under any military authority.
  The CHAIRMAN: Quite so. We are now on the question of the Second Reading of this Clause, and to enter into the pros and cons of all the various kinds of service of national importance would really be abusing the latitude which I agree to allow the Committee.
  Sir W. ESSEX: Accepting that, may I point out one of the difficulties of so employing these persons in these trades? All of them would be skilled trades, trades that are in urgent need of labour, and trades upon which large gangs might be employed, and that would necessitate the conscription of labour, and would mean the enlargement of the scope of the Bill. Personally I am not now canvassing whether that is a desirable thing or not, but may I not fairly urge that as an argument, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago said that he would very earnestly welcome some suggestion which would get him out of his difficulty in dealing with these persons, with whom we all believe he has very real sympathy. It will be clear to people who have thought this out that if we did employ these people on some labour other than that which is uncharitably described as "mere military work" we should have to give them military pay, otherwise we should have a goldsmith working at 15s. or 16s. per week in Gloucestershire as an agricultural labourer and another man in Birmingham getting £3 per week as ammunition worker. I may point out that you would be bound to standardise the pay of all the men of military age. You cannot say to this man you will be exempted and can earn £4 a week and to the other you shall risk your limb or life for a shilling a day. Whatever labour is decided upon you will have to make it a military rate of pay. And then you will be brought up against this new difficulty, namely, that those at present of military age working in this occupation will be able to turn round and say, "You are working for 1s. a day; I am getting £4 a week." The result will be that you will have to take all those men there working of military age, and they must all receive military pay, or whatever is the lower pay. Then there would come a time when, if you had agreed

  1053
  to do that boldly, a man would be working for 1s. a day and at five minutes past twelve he would pass the forty-one year barrier and become entitled to the higher scale of £4 a week. These are some of the many difficulties, and we have to find a way out of the trouble. I rather doubt if we have time to think about a solution now, but I am sure everyone will be willing to thresh the question out and to try to arrive at a solution of this terrible problem. For myself, I am more than ever moved with sympathy with those who are roughly treated by the tribunals. But that is not the question at present before us. We want to carry the whole of the people with us in this great problem, whatever labour the solution of it may cost us. It may even involve the sacrifice of old-time associations and ideals, but for the sake of those who are, as to some of them, the best of our people, we ought not to begrudge any labour to bring about a satisfactory and amicable solution.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: In view of the appeal from the Chairman and the latitude of the discussion we have had, I would like to ask whether, if the proposed New Clause is withdrawn, the President of the Local Government Board will follow up his invitation to hon. Members to make practical suggestions with some assurance that if such suggestions are put before him as will unite those made from various quarters of the House in a workable plan, he will be prepared to bring up some plan on the Report stage which will give favourable consideration to the proposals?
  Mr. LONG: I have no hesitation in responding to that suggestion. I shall be only too glad to receive practical suggestions, and if there are two or three Members of the House who believe that they can produce a working plan I shall, of course, be very pleased to consider it. But it is not so easy of solution as it would appear to be from the speeches made to-night. It is quite easy to state the difficulties, and even they have not been completely stated, but to find a real solution which will do justice to the genuine sufferer and not open the door wide to the malingerer and the shirker is a problem which I frankly confess, on behalf of the Government, I have been unable to solve. Certainly, if anybody in any quarter of the Committee thinks he has a practical suggestion I shall be only too glad to consider it.
  Mr. RADFORD: I should like to express my sympathy with the President of the Local Government Board in the difficulty in which he finds himself in dealing with the conscientious objector, a difficulty he seems to think almost insuperable. I particularly regret the tone of despondency which marked the latter phrases of his speech. The co-operation of Members of this House—there is a great deal of feeling tending to one end in the Committee— ought to help him to find a solution of this difficulty, which really is not insuperable. His courage is well known, his energy is indisputable, and his other qualities are shining. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark with regard to the tribunals which ought not to pass without some observation. He never mentions the tribunals without a eulogy. It is quite right that he should praise them. The tribunals were created by him, and he sees his creation and says "It is very good." The tribunals divert from him to themselves the odium which is necessarily incident to the administration of any system of compulsion, therefore it is quite right that the right hon. Gentleman should praise them. But I am bound to say that if he regards his eulogy as one that is applicable to the whole of these tribunals or to the tribunals at large he makes a very great mistake indeed. My experience of the tribunals, judging them from the newspapers, my own Constituents, and my correspondence, is that their administration is very frequently bad in the extreme and that, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, there is a frequent miscarriage of justice. That is, I believe, happening every day in this country and is one of the causes why the odium attaching to the original Military Service Act has increased, is increasing, and, after the passage of this Bill, will increase greater yet. I feel bound to say that word about the tribunals.
  Yesterday I received a deputation consisting of fifteen passive resisters. I told them that I had voted for the Second Reading of the Bill and had no more respect for a conscientious objector than I had for any other honest man. I said that if after receiving that confession from me they still wished to see me, I should be glad to receive them. They came. I found they were fifteen persons who had placed their cases before a tribunal, some, I think, before the Appeal Tribunal. What had happened to them was that the tribunal— God knows what a tribunal is; it is as

  1055
  different from a court of justice as chalk is from cheese—refused to allow them to state their case, and decided the case on its intuitive knowledge of all the facts. What was the result. These people came away with a rankling sense of injustice which they will never forget, which will be communicated to their friends and which will be shared by every honest Englishman who dislikes to see injustice done. I tried to soothe these people. It was a very difficult job, but I elicited from them that they were all ready to do work of national importance and they did not know how to get it, and they asked me if I could help them. I suggested that if they could get into communication with the Pelham Committee it was just possible that something might be done. I knew it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to do. Probably next week these men will be in prison, and they are ready to go there and rot. They are only fifteen men out of 15,000.
  HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Mr. RADFORD: Do not flatter yourselves that these men are few. They are not. They swarm in my Constituency. They will go to prison and you will have the cost of keeping them, of watching them and warding them, while they are ready to do work of national importance. Work of national importance is gaping to be done and we are doing something which is an act of national folly. The right hon. Gentleman has only to apply his brain and his energy and his courage and his other qualities, with the help of Members of the House, and the difficulty will be solved.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I was not fortunate enough to hear my right hon. Friend's longer speech, but I was a little depressed to hear the note of philosophical despair in the few words which he said just now. In common with a great many people of all sorts of religious opinions in this country, including a great many members of the Church of England, I feel a sense of very real uneasiness at the idea that sincerely religious people, often of the highest character, are being made to suffer because they hold opinions perverse and foolish indeed, but entirely genuine and founded upon the most deep religious convictions. I do not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman behind me that those who are animated by constitutional timidity, however true it is to say they are objects of pity, ought to be in any way relieved,
  1056
  and I do not wish to relieve the religious conscientious objector on the ground that I am sorry for him. I want to relieve him because it seems scandalous and discreditable to us all that any penalty should be imposed upon him. All history is full of these cases. The precise process that has been gone over in this case has been gone over times without number, sometimes against people who are in the right, sometimes against people who are in the wrong, but always calamitously to those who inflict these penalties. Therefore, I earnestly hope my right hon. Friend will address himself to the subject with the intention of finding a solution. If there is no other way, there is always the prerogative of mercy which could be used when it becomes perfectly clear that by a perfectly honest mistake on the part of a tribunal a sincere and genuine man has been put in the position of incurring a penalty. It appears to me that the Royal prerogative of mercy ought always to be used in such cases as that. Let us be sure, however, that we gain nothing for the Army, the country, for any purpose whatever by disregarding or locating with contempt religious convictions, however untrue they are, and there already is a very great sense of uneasiness in quarters not in the least associated with any opposition to the Bill who feel very deeply indeed the danger of oppression of the religious conscientious objector.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am sure we are all grateful who have been associated with this cause in any way for the speech we have just heard. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken if he in any way thinks that those who have taken up this question have done so in a spirit of desiring to promote some agitation. Some weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman in answering a question said a great deal of harm was being done to the cause of the conscientious objector by these questions. Since then I have put down no questions at all. Every day I get numbers of letters. I have had scores and hundreds of letters. In fact, they have been too much for me, and I have come to the condition when I cannot read them and have to put them on one side. They are not appeals in the main from the men themselves. In nearly every case they are from parents, a mother or a father, who say, "We have brought up this boy in a certain religious belief, and he is maintaining that belief and tells us he will die for that belief, and we think he is right and that the State is

  1057
  wrong to force him." The difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is going to be in, and a serious disadvantage will arise from it and to all those who desire to keep the minds of the people clear in support of the War, is that it is not the cowardice of these men that is involved, it is the courage of the men. I am sure you will find numbers of these men if they are sent to France and refused work there, and are in the position of a deserter, who will be ready to be shot. They will not do that in any spirit of martyrdom. There is no desire to indulge in any sort of bombast. I do not think anyone could go before a firing line in that spirit. These men will face death, and that will, do no good from the military point of view or from the point of view of those who desire to get general support of the War in the country. We have seen the horror that has arisen in Dublin, and its effect on popular opinion there and throughout this country, and I am sure the same thing will arise if the death penalty is carried out upon these men. When the hon. Gentleman speaks on the question of finding alternative employment he always seem to regard it from the point of view that everybody is being called to the Colours, and, therefore, to leave anybody out or give them alternative employment would inflict some flagrant and obvious injustice. We have to remember that millions of men are remaining in civilian employment in this country, and cones-sequently to provide some sort of civil employment for the few thousands, or whatever the number may be, would not create some obvious injustice or the appearance of dereliction of duty. I hope there may be some settlement of this question because of the very great and grievous strain it lays upon those to whose notice it is particularly drawn. It is, as the noble Lord has said, a strange religious motive which I am, perhaps, not entirely able to appreciate, but which shall be recognised.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: In view of the assurances of my right hon. Friend, his kind willingness to consider the suggestion made, and the very kind consideration that has been given to it by the Committee, I ask leave to withraw the Clause.
  Mr. KING Mr. KING rose—
  HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"
  Mr. KING: I claim—
  The CHAIRMAN: It was on the suggestion of the hon. Member, and on his initiation, that the Committee agreed to have a wider Debate on this particular Clause. Of course, he is entitled to speak before it is withdrawn.
  Mr. KING: I gave way, having the first Amendment on this subject, in order that the Debate might take a course which might be convenient to the Committee. I have sat through the whole of the Debate, and I have risen on every possible occasion, and now the House wants to shout me down, when I am absolutely convinced that I have a solution of this question. At this time of the evening I should like to take ten minutes to give it. I pity my fellow Members who have set here so long; I pity especially the right hon. Gentleman opposite; I shall therefore, in the shortest possible way, tell him what I think is wrong and how it can be cured. The real reason why this difficulty is so serious, and why he is so hopeless, is that there is inequality all round. There is inequality, first of all, amongst the conscientious objectors themselves. You cannot cure that. But you can have a definite method of treating them equally in the tribunals. If the right hon. Gentleman had given fuller directions, and if the House had, in the first instance, made the duty of the tribunals more clear, we should not have had so many difficulties. Then there are great inequalities in the Appeal Tribunals. I have heard people say that if you are on one side of the street in Westminster you get no hearing, while if you are on the other side of the street you get a fair hearing and probably the relief you ask for. That in itself is a scandal and a difficulty, and it creates the greatest sense of injustice. Beyond that, there has been the greatest inequality in the way in which these men have been treated.
  Sir S. COLLINS: We want the solution.
  Mr. KING: I will give the solution if my hon. Friend will have patience. You must give clear directions to the tribunals that they must see to this question only: Has the man a conscientious objection? Of that question the man himself is the prime judge, in this way—that the onus of proof must lie upon those who say he has no conscientious objection. The action of the War Office has been most unequal all round. There are certain cases in which the War Office have handed the men over to the military authorities to be thrown into a darkened cell, loaded with irons,

  1059
  given practically starvation rations, and had every indignity, injustice, and hardship put upon them. On the other hand, there have been may cases where the treatment of the officers, noncommissioned officers, and men has been most reasonable and kind and altogether exemplary. In some cases the War Office have found the solution in finding after two or three weeks that the men were totally medically unfit for any service whatever and discharging them. In other cases they have discharged the men or given them indefinite leave and sent them back to their homes and businesses. In a great number of cases they have sent them out to France, and in other cases they have adopted various other solutions. The whole real difficulty is the inequality and the variety of methods from beginning to end. If there had been a clear course settled by reasonable men on such lines that everybody would have understood and known what the men had to do, what they had to expect, and what in certain circumstances had to be adopted, we should know where we were, and there would be no sense of inequality or injustice. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman what I believe to be the solution, and if he will take a solution of this kind into his judgment, and consider it as far as is practicable, I am perfectly certain a solution may easily be found.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that a number of the other Clauses are covered by the discussion which has taken place. There are one or two which raise some particular point which might be taken without a long discussion. The hon. Member for Blackburn has two Amendments on the Paper. The point of one has already been covered, but the second raises a point which has not been discussed.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It has been suggested that Members shall not make speeches on the Amendments, and in my case that suggestion is unnecessary, because I have been a conscientious objector for the last half hour, for I have never believed in the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. I. think the point of my first Clause has been covered, but the second raises a distinctly new point, and I propose to submit it to the Committee.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s.2, ss.(1), of Principal Act.)
  Section two, sub-section (1), of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were added thereto the words "such an objection being expressed by a statutory declaration before two justices, or on the evidence orally or in writing before the tribunal of not less than two reputable persons that the applicant has and does hold a conscientious objection to any form of military service.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: This Clause which I move explains itself, and I need not make any further observations upon it.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the point in his first Clause has been met; but the Clause which he has moved would make conscientious objections much more frequent than the Amendment last moved. As I think the point is more than covered by the discussion on the last Amendment, I will only say that we cannot possibly accept this Clause.
  Mr. HOLT: I submit that the only possible way to meet the case of the conscientious objector is to take his statement of conscientious objection. The real difficulty is that the Act itself assumes that the conscientious objector does not exist. It involves the collective conscience of the State against the conscience of the individual. The difficulty can only be dealt with by doing something illogical, even in the form of accepting this Amendment, or else by certain administration taking care that no hardship exists.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Constitution and Procedure of the Tribunals.)
  In the appointment of members of the local tribunal the local registration authority shall provide for the adequate representation of labour in the registration district, and in a district where there is a body generally representative of labour the local registration authority shall consult such body before making their appointments, and such local authority shall, wherever practicable, appoint one or more women on the local tribunal.
  The appointment of members of the, local tribunal shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Local Government Board, who may at any time revoke the appointment of a member who has proved to be unfitted for the work.
  The local and appeal tribunals shall generally be conducted in public, but the tribunal may in a special case, with the assent of the applicant, conduct the proceedings wholly or in part in private, provided that the applicant shall have the right to claim that his case may be wholly or in part heard in private.
  An applicant is entitled to have oral or written testimony on his behalf considered by the tribunal and he may have his case conducted by counsel or by a solicitor or lay a friend.
  The military representative is a party to the hearing of a case, but he is not entitled to be present during the time an applicant has been ordered to withdraw nor is he entitled to take any part when the tribunal is considering its decision.
  An applicant is entitled to claim exemption on any or upon more than one of the grounds set out in Section two, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act, and the tribunals must hear and determine each and all of the grounds of his application.
  The decision of the local tribunal shall be immediately communicated to the applicant in writing, and if sent by post it shall be sent in a registered letter, and the applicant shall be entitled to give notice of appeal within three clear days of the receipt of such decision.—[Mr. Snowden.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I propose to move these three new Clauses in one. The first part deals with the question of labour representation. On the Committee on the principal Act a very definite promise was given by the right hon. Gentleman that there should be an Instruction to local authorities to appoint labour representation on the tribunal. That certainly has not been done. I know of no tribunal where labour representation can be regarded as adequate. In my own Constituency, where trade unionism is stronger than it is probably in any other town of a population of 130,000, there are
  1062
  30,000 trade unionists, and yet the local trades council has not been considered at all by the local registration authority, and there is no labour representation on the tribunal that is recognised by the local trade union movement. That is typical of all over the country. I want to make the provision of such representation statutory.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: What would the hon. Member consider adequate trade union representation. Would he think two out of five sufficient, for that is not unknown?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not want trade union representation particularly. The President of the Local Government Board in a speech on the original Bill made that point clear. What we wanted was labour representation. There are a great many parts of the country where trade unions hardly exist and you could not have trade union representation there. I think what we all desire is that the working classes should be adequately represented. If their representation were in proportion to their numbers in the population they would be in the majority in a number of the tribunals. There have been very few cases of the appointment of women to the tribunals. That is referred to in the first Clause. The next proposal is to give power to the Local Government Board to revoke the appointment of a member of a tribunal. I have given a great many instances to the Local Government Board where the members of the tribunal acted in a most illegal manner. They have evidently been supported by the appointing authority. The power of the President of the Local Government Board is limited to sending a mild letter of remonstrance, and the local tribunal may act on it or not. The local tribunal in my place acted in a most illegal manner. It was brought to the notice of the President of the Local Government Board, who wrote a letter to them next week. The tribunal passed a resolution unanimously saying, "We shall do what we like. If you do not like this you must get somebody else."
  The next point is to make it statutory that the proceedings of the local tribunal shall be public unless the applicant desires otherwise. There have been a great many cases in which the tribunal would not allow the public to be present during the hearing of the case, though the applicant was anxious to be heard in public. The next point is that an applicant is entitled

  1063
  to have oral or written testimony on his behalf considered by the tribunal and he may have his case conducted by counsel or by a solicitor or by a friend. There has been a very large number of cases in which the tribunal has refused to take evidence on behalf of an applicant or to allow anyone to appear on his behalf. Then the military representative ought not to be in a different position from the applicant, but in a great many cases he is placed in a privileged position, and while the public are excluded while decisions are being considered by the tribunal the military representative is allowed to remain. We do not know, of course, what happens. He evidently remains behind to influence the decision of the tribunal. It is quite conceivable that in a great many cases an applicant may change his ground of objection. He may be regarded by his employer as indispensable, and his domestic circumstances may be such as to justify an application for exemption. He is legally entitled to claim on both grounds, but it is a common practice for a tribunal to refuse to consider more than one ground, and to say, "On which ground do you elect to have your application heard? We refuse to hear you on more than one ground." All these proposals, except one, are from the Instruction, and what I desire is to give them statutory authority.
  Sir G. CAVE: I recognise that the greater part of this Amendment is covered by the Regulations or Instructions issued by the Local Government Board. The point is whether these items are not matters of procedure which are far more suitable to be dealt with by Regulations than by the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Procedure by Regulation has this advantage, that if it is found to be not appropriate it can be altered and improved from time to time.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: In some cases we find the same words appearing in the Instructions as in the Regulations. That is not invariable. I understand that the Regulations have the authority of law. That is not so in the case of the Instructions. If I can get these proposals incorporated in the Regulations I am willing to withdraw.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I cannot give that assurance. But I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will fully consider the points raised.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I suggest, in order to expedite the business, that I am willing that the matter should be put down for the Report stage. Between now and then the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give me some more definite assurance. In view of that I do not press the point now.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Proceedings as to Appeal in Certain Cases.)
  Regulations made under the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall contain a provision that when an appeal against the decision of a local tribunal is made by the applicant, and no appeal has been made by the military representative, it shall not be competent for the Appeal Tribunal to withdraw the certificate or to vary it in a sense unfavourable to the applicant.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. SNOWDEN: In moving this Clause, may I say that there have been a good many cases where the applicant has been given his non-combatant certificate by the local tribunal, and, having appealed to the county tribunal, it has been taken away, and he has been assigned combatant duties. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the Appeal Tribunal altering the first decision to the disadvantage of the applicant.
  Mr. LONG: I gather that it is desired that this point should be put into the Regulations?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I want to put this into the Act,
  Mr. LONG: As my right hon. and learned Friend said, "I am quite willing to look into the matter, but I cannot by Regulation agree to vary, or diametrically to alter, what has constitutionally been settled by Act of Parliament. If the difficulties referred to can be removed by Regulation I will try to remove them.
  Mr. L. JONES: I would like to press this point. It may be small, but it has been a grievance in a great many cases. There are cases where the conscientious objector has been granted non-combatant service, and has appealed to the Appeal Tribunal for absolute exemption. The military representative has not objected, and it

  1065
  seems very hard that the Appeal Tribunal should not have been content with dismissing the appeal, but have actually gone further and said, "Because you have chosen to re-open the case therefore we shall give you less good treatment than that given by the local tribunal which knew more about you." In law that is a rehearing and therefore we cannot put in a case. In practice, if the military representative does not appeal, I really cannot see why the Appeal Tribunal should not be content with dismissing the appeal.
  Mr. LONG: In reality my hon. Friend is handing the whole power over to the military representative, and the tribunal is to be governed by the action of the military representative. It means that the guidance of the tribunal is to be in the hands of the military representative. That is what I want to prevent. I do not want to make them dependent on the military representative. It is for them to do what they think is just, and I believe that is what they are trying to do.
  Mr. NIELD: I think, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has admitted, this is indeed a re-hearing, and, therefore, if a man challenges the decision below by making an appeal, he really must put up with the consequences of the appeal. Let me recite an instance of what has taken place over and over again to my knowledge. The papers at the local tribunal have been regarded as quite sufficient, and a certificate has been granted, but at the Appeal Tribunal the applicant has come before the tribunal personally, and it is found that the certificate of exemption ought never to have been granted. The man has faced the music for the first time, and, therefore, I venture to think, the Appeal Tribunals ought not to be bound in that case to leave the man just precisely where he was, when obviously the order below has been made by simply taking the statements which appear on paper.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think that in such a case the applicant has the right to go back again to the local tribunal and have a re-hearing by that body.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Report from Army Medical Board.)
  The principal Act shall be construed as if to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 were added the words:
  The tribunal may adjourn the decision of any claim until they have received a
  1066
  report from the Army Medical Board as to the fitness for military service of the man concerned.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This is a Clause which is put down in the interests of the appeal tribunal and also in the interests of the Army. A great deal of worry and trouble might be saved if the local tribunal before coming to a decision could be assured what is the opinion of the Army Medical Board as to the health and qualifications of the applicant. In a great number of cases a man goes as far as the Appeal Tribunal and is finally rejected when he actually gets to the Army. The Appeal Tribunal is given a great deal of trouble, and it gives endless worry to the man. There are many cases of domestic hardship—widows' sons and such cases — where, if the tribunal knew in advance that the Army would not use the man in any circumstances for active service, but might possibly use him for clerical work, it might be the governing factor in the position, and might materially assist the tribunal in giving a right decision. I need not explain the purport of the Clause further, and I hope the Government will accept it.
  Mr. LONG: The object of my hon. Friend is quite a desirable one, but may I point out that the tribunals have already got this power. We have now learned that there is the utmost difficulty in regard to all these medical examinations by the War Office owing to the fact that there are so many cases, and there are no longer as many medical men as there were. Therefore, the problem has become much more difficult and onerous. If this new Clause were put in it would be an indication that this is the course which ought to be followed, and I do not think it is necessary to give any plainer indication of the powers which they already possess.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I quite agree with the object of this proposal, but he must not forget that the tribunals have nothing to do with the medical unfitness of anyone. Their duty is to regard the cases from an entirely different point of view, and the question of medical fitness must always rest with the Army Medical Board.
  Mr. RENDALL: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Clause will he

  1067
  give an Instruction to the tribunals to carry out the wishes of the hon. Member who has made this proposal?
  Mr. L. JONES: May I point out that it may very much affect the decision of the tribunal whether a man is fit for combatant service or only non-combatant service. If the man is not fit for combatant service it might be better for him not to leave home.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: But this Clause deals with everybody.
  Mr. L. JONES: Take the case of a man who has business obligations. This may not be enough to override the call for combatant service, but you may be taking him away from work for which he is fitted.
  Captain AMERY: I agree that there are very serious difficulties in regard to which is the soundest and best method. The procedure adopted in every Continental country is that the whole of the medical examination should come first and only after the man is passed as fit comes the question whether any other reason over and above fitness should exempt him from service, and only then are those reasons considered. Undoubtedly there is a very difficult balance of advantage when the question is whether a man is fit for combatant service. If he is, then undoubtedly the reasons for keeping him at home in his office must be very strong indeed to exempt him. On the other hand, if you take the case of a man who is the head of an important business which, in the national interest is at any rate of such importance that the tribunal is very much exercised in its mind whether it should support him or not, and the only question is not whether he should go to the front but whether he should leave the control of the business and become a subordinate Army clerk 200 yards away, for which duties you could easily hire a man. That matter should come within the purview of the tribunal, and the point of view of dealing with men only fit for clerical work should be different to dealing with men fit for combatant service.
  12.0 M.
  Though I would not be prepared to press the new Clause if it is difficult or not practicable to work it, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the members of the Army Council to see whether it will not be possible, now that we have got full powers of compulsory service and are able to look ahead, to
  1068
  bring the Army Medical Examining Board up to a standard of strength and efficiency so that, at any rate, in the great majority of cases, no man shall come before an appeal tribunal until it has been definitely settled to which class or category, physically, he belongs.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept this as a Clause, will agree to make it a Regulation. We have had sent in to the Ambulance Unit men who were unsuited for the work. I believe if this were a Regulation, it would save such cases.
  Mr. NIELD: In all cases where there is any doubt the papers are marked by the medical board and the report of the board is produced at the time the appeal is called on. Very often private certificates are attached to the papers, and it has been my duty to insist that the man should be re-examined by another board, with results that have sometimes been startling. The practice is always to take care in all cases where there is a representation of ill-health that there should be a medical board' certificate before the man is disposed of. I do not see any reason for carrying it further than it is at present. Every tribunal is proceeding on these lines, being anxious not to send unfit men into the Army.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Clause in the hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think the two following Clauses have been covered (Imprisonment in a Public Prison for Offence Against Court-Martial) and (Order for Alternative Service).
  Mr. MORRELL: I wish to move.
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to take up the time of the Committee by moving an Amendment which has already been covered I cannot prevent him.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Order for Alternative Service.)
  Where a man who has been enlisted under the principal Act or under this Act refuses or fails to obey an order given to him by his superior officer on the ground that he has a conscientious objection to military service he shall forthwith be tried by court-martial, and, if it appears to the court that there is reasonable grounds, for

  1069
  supposing that his refusal or failure to obey such order was in fact due to conscientious motives, the case shall be referred for trial to a civil court which may order the man to engage in work of national importance as an alternative to military service, under Regulations to be made by Order in Council under this Act, and subject to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years if he fails or refuses to comply with the order of the civil court.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think this Clause is covered by a decision already arrived at by the Committee.
  Mr. MORRELL: With all respect, I think I should now be allowed to explain its object. This is a practical solution for dealing with a still more difficult question. I do not wish to enter into any previous discussion as to the powers of the tribunals, but I want to deal with the question of what is to be done with men who have gone into the Army and are there on grounds of conscience resisting orders which they say their consciences will not allow them to obey. What this Clause proposes is that such men shall be entitled to be tried by court-martial. This is a very important matter.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but the very point he is now discussing has already been discussed by this Committee. To my own personal knowledge—I was not in the Chair at the time—it was debated.
  Mr. MORRELL: I have been in the House all the time and do not want to put my opinion against yours, but I just want to explain this practical suggestion. It is that if at the court-martial there is reasonable ground for supposing that a man is induced on conscientious grounds to refuse to obey orders he should have the right to be taken before a Civil Court which should have the power to decide whether or not he should be put to some alternative service. There is one other point which has not been before the Committee, and that is the liability of these men, whether they go to France or not, to be shot. It seems to me, if such a man does go to France, it will be the duty of the military
  1070
  authorities to shoot him. I have here extracts from the Army Act—I do not propose to read them—which to me make it perfectly conclusive that unless some provision such as I am suggesting is put into this Bill the result will be that the conscientious objector will be shot. For that reason I do urge my right hon. Friend to consider this practical attempt at the solution of a very difficult problem.
  Mr. LONG: I do not think my hon. Friend realises that this new Clause goes, far beyond anything which has been proposed hitherto in connection with the conscientious objector. There is no provision in it that the man affected should in the first instance have taken advantage of the Appeal Tribunal. There is nothing in it with regard to his previous conduct. All he has to do is to say he has a conscientious objection to military service. Lots of people can say they conscientiously object to various forms of service, and if you are going to allow any man to whom military service is distasteful to be relegated to civil process for trial, although he has taken no step to secure exemption on the ground that he is a conscientious objector, you will be making a very undesirable extension of the Clause already agreed upon. I cannot accept this Clause in any form, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. Let us consider the Debate closed on this question and pass on to other important points which remain to be settled.
  Mr. KING: I am very sorry that the President of the Local Government Board is not more sympathetic. It seems to me he is not trying to understand what this Clause is about. It really is very discouraging to those who, like myself, are sincerely hoping to find some honourable solution of this problem, and at the same time to find a solution which will increase the military strength of this country, to get no more sympathetic treatment than the right hon. Gentleman extends to us. The hon. Member who moved the Clause has spoken of the possible fate of these men if they are sent to France. I have looked into the question and I have come to the conclusion that these me must expect to be shot sooner or later—sooner rather than later—if they go to France, and that that is really contemplated by the military authorities. That is deplorable. It is no solution whatever, and it is not going to increase either the honour, strength, or military power of this country. I very much regret

  1071
  that we do not get a little further. We might have had more sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to withdraw the Motion, but I will raise the matter again on the Report stage.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exception for Prisoners of War, etc.)
  Nothing in this or the principal Act shall operate so as to render liable to military service any person who has at any time since the beginning of the War been a prisoner of war captured or interned by the enemy and has been released or exchanged.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  This proposal is very limited in its application, but none the less is of considerable importance. It is a proposal that those citizens who have been interned or imprisoned in Germany, and who have been realsed by the enemy, on the ground, no doubt, that they are medically unfit, shall be declared to be outside the scope of this Bill. Obviously, it will only affect a very limited number of persons. There are two reasons why it should be adopted. First, we do not wish to provide the enemy with an argument that he cannot release a prisoner of war because, if he does, he will come under the compulsory powers of this Bill, and, secondly, we all desire to do all we can—I am afraid it is little enough—to give encouragement to those fellow subjects who are prisoners in Germany and to put no obstacles in the way of their release.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: What is the enemy doing?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have not the slightest idea. No one who has a relative interned or a prisoner of war in Germany, and who has reason to know that he is in bad health, would have any objection to this.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I was not making any objection, but only asking for information.
  Mr. LONG: I am quite willing to accept this Clause, which was omitted by an oversight from the Bill. We did not intend
  1072
  to expose those who have been prisoners or interned in Germany and who have been released to the operation of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to; Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. HOLT(who had given notice of a new Clause—Limitation of the Number of Married Men who may at any Time be Enlisted for Service with the Colours): At this time of night it is rather undesirable to press such an important subject upon the notice of the Committee, and I shall therefore take a more favourable opportunity of raising the whole question.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion we have had covers the next four Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. E. Harvey). I do not know whether the hon. Member agrees?
  Mr. E. HARVEY: I do not wish to press them now if the Government are not able to meet me on any point.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption for Members of Parliament.)
  There shall be added to the First Schedule to the principal Act, paragraph seven,—
  Members of either House of Parliament.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I do not think it would be in accordance with the dignity of Parliament that a Member should have to go before the tribunals and argue with them on this ground: that it is expedient in the national interest that he should, instead of being employed for military service, be employed on other work on which he wishes to be engaged. Nobody can contemplate that a local tribunal should have power to say that a Member of Parliament should become a soldier. A Member is responsible to his constitutents and to this House. This cannot possibly affect the number of persons who will be taken into the Army, because not more than ten Members of Parliament can possibly be affected by this Bill. It is, from a constitutional point of view, most improper to suggest that any Member of Parliament's right to attend this House ought to be regulated by a local tribunal.
  Mr. LONG: I do not think the Committee will expect me to accept this Clause. I do not think we need talk about the dignity of Members of Parliament in connection with a Clause of this kind. The suggestion is that they are to be exempted in a specially reserved class, and are not to be exposed to indignity of going before the tribunal, but for some reason are to be exempted because they happen to be Members of Parliament. In the difficulty which my hon. Friend contemplates they could resign their seats.
  Mr. KING: I am very sorry we must again complain of the unsympathetic attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. Why he chooses to take up a stiff, unbending, unimaginative point of view to all Amendments I cannot understand. Allow me to point out one or two things which my hon. Friend omitted because he hoped naturally that it would be unnecessary to put them forward. In other countries which have conscripts there is a recognised liberty for Members of the Legislature to attend to their business in Parliament, and I think that ought to exist here. It can only exist by giving some such exemption as this. We have had statements from the Prime Minister at one time or another that he does not recognise, or would not maintain the constitutional right of a Member of Parliament always to attend his place in Parliament when there was a sitting. From an answer he gave the other day he seemed to recognise that if a Member of Parliament was in the Army he could only attend here by leave of his commanding officer. Then there is this further consideration, that it is quite possible for the Government to exercise an unfair preference to one Member of Parliament or one set of Members of Parliament or one party of Members of Parliament over another. We have several Members of Parliament here who are also in the Army. We have the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Amery). We are always very glad to see him here. He brings a freshness and intelligence, and authority and experience, and he knows for the inside of the War Office certain things which I am sure he uses judiciously, but at the same time greatly to our advantage. There are other hon. Members who have staff appointments. I am very glad to see them here, but I can well imagine that other Members of Parliament, who may in future be conscripted, may go to my right hon. Friend opposite and say, "I am conscripted and I have to attend to my
  1074
  duties in Parliament, I do not want to go into trenches. I can do better work by having a stool at your office and sitting there in the morning and going to the House in the afternoon." The right hon. Gentleman may take a different view of these questions. I trouble my right hon. Friend so frequently with awkward questions that he may say, "King is a great deal better if he is over in France in the trenches." He may be right but at the same time I contend that I have to settle that question, not he. If I am elected a Member of Parliament I say it is within my right to say I shall attend here.
  Mr. L. JONES: And nobody could stop you.
  Mr. KING: It is really a practical question of some importance, which may in the future—I hope it is not very likely—but I conceive it may be possible, even in the near future—be a matter of real practical difficulty to us and may raise a serious constitutional point whether a member of Parliament who wants to attend to his business in this House is going to be sent away by an administrative act of the Government into the trenches, when his constituents wish him to be here. That is why I look upon it as a very important question. It has been put aside by one or two rather contemptuously and without any sympathetic words by the President of the Local Government Board. I suppose it is hopeless to ask the Government for anything. They have got command of forces in this field which can toe carried to overwhelming victory against any opposition at any moment. I wish they were in the same position on the Continent. They may use their powers like a giant here, but the War cannot last for ever, and if they are unjust and ungenerous, unfair and unconstitutional here to-day, it will be an unhappy day for them hereafter.
  Captain AMERY: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted this Clause. At the same time it seems to be very necessary in this House that the correct constitutional position of a Member of Parliament in regard to military service should be made clear. I say, in spite of a certain remark made by the Prime Minister in answer to a question a little time ago, that there is no doubt whatever of the constitutional position as made clear in the manual of military law, and as made clear in debates in this House seventy or eighty years ago, that when

  1075
  Parliament is in Session a Member of Parliament, whether an officer or a private, has the right, not merely to ask for leave but to insist upon attending his duties in Parliament. That being so, it seems to me that there is no object in a Clause which would give a Member of Parliament, apart from the special right, the right of being exempted from the duty and obligation to do what is done by every other citizen of the same military age.
  Mr. TENNANT: He must not be on full pay.
  Captain AMERY: That is another matter. So long as he attends to his military duties, whether as a private or as an officer when the House is not sitting, and is under the control and command of his superior officer, he has a right when Parliament is sitting to attend to his duties. Therefore, he is able to fulfill both his duties to his Constituents and his military duties as an ordinary citizen.
  Mr. L. JONES: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Amery) has put that point. There is no one in the country who has the right to stop a Member of Parliament from coming to this House to discharge his duties. No one can interfere with the rights of a constituency to choose their Member, and to send any man to represent them. I think that is recognised. I do not want to make this exemption in set terms, but so long as the House is sitting Members of Parliament must be free to attend to their duties.
  Mr. TENNANT: It is perfectly clear that any Member of Parliament who is a serving soldier, and who desires to attend to his duties in Parliament, can claim the right to come here, and he can either go on half-pay, or be absent from the service for those duties. But so long as he remains on full pay, being a serving soldier, he must be subject to the orders of his Commander-in-Chief.
  Mr. JONES: How is a private soldier to get the privilege to which he is entitled?
  Mr. TENNANT: He must apply through the ordinary channels—that is through his commanding officer.
  Mr. HUNT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he remembers telling me that an officer could not get leave to attend Parliamnt? I can assure him that I could not get leave to attend Parlia-
  1076
  ment. The military authorities told me distinctly that they did not want me to-attend Parliament.
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon Friend uses the word "leave." Leave must be subject to the exigencies of the service and to the discretion of the commanding officer.
  Mr. HUNT: How could I possibly come-up here unless I got leave? The right hon. Gentleman said that I was not entitled to leave.
  Mr. HOLT: I want to be told explicitly is it the opinion of the Government that if a Member goes to the tribunal and claims exemption on the ground that it was expedient in the national interests that he should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work as a Member of Parliament, it is proper for a tribunal to say "Not at all; you are a bad Member of Parliament. We think that you should be employed in the trenches?" Does anybody contemplate that a local tribunal ought to be allowed to decide whether a particular constituency should have a Member or not? I am going to put a specific case to this House. I understand that my hon. Friend, the Member for the Attercliffe division (Mr. Anderson), is a man of military age. Suppose he goes to a tribunal, which will not be in his own constituency, and asks for exemption—
  Mr. LONG: How do you know that it will not be in his own constituency?
  Mr. HOLT: I understand that he does not live there. If it is in his own constituency I think it fairly safe to assume that the tribunal will be manned by his own political opponents.
  Mr. LONG: Why?
  Mr. HOLT: Because I think that the class of persons who compose these tibunals is not the class of persons who generally vote for Labour Members. I put it as a fair sporting bet—what would the House think if the local tribunal refused a man such exemption, and said, "He has got to go to the front?" I believe that the whole country would be scandalised if a thing of that sort took place. I say that the only proper and dignified thing is for the House of Commons to say straight out that they will not have the right to attend this House interfered with by any local tribunal, and, further, that they will leave it to the conscience of individual Members to say whether or no

  1077
  it is their duty to serve. If the Government will not accept the Amendment now I certainly intend to raise it again and fight the issue, because I think a considerable constitutional question is involved.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: It appears to me, from what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, that he has an extraordinary, I should have said ignorant view of human nature in the example he took when he said that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), if he came before a tribunal composed of his political opponents, would not get exemption.
  Mr. HOLT: I never said so. I never said he would not get exemption. I asked what would happen if he did not get exemption.
  Mr. McNEILL: That is what I say. The hon. Gentleman imagined that if the hon. Member for Attercliffe came before a tribunal composed of his political opponents his exemption would be refused.
  Mr. HOLT: I did not.
  Mr. McNEILL: That is what I understood. Exactly the contrary would be the result. If the hon. Gentleman came before a tribunal consisting of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, he would get whatever he asked. If, on the other hand, he came before a tribunal presided over by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who sits beside him, then he would get very short shrift. The hon. Gentleman would certainly send him into the ranks, whereas, if he came before a tribunal of which I was a member, his exemption would be settled — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?]—Obviously, because we should be most anxious, as all men are, to show that we want to give the fullest consideration to the views and the prejudices of hon. Members from whom we differ; whereas the hon. Member for Leicester, who cannot be open to any suggestion of unfairness of that kind, would do his duty as the head of the tribunal, and would send him to the front. Therefore, it seems to me, it is absurd to take the view of the hon. Member. As to the Amendment, surely we ought to do all that we can to minimise—for I cannot help feeling it—the contempt of Parliament that is growing up out of doors at the present time, and to take a broad view of the matter. What would be said throughout the country if at the very moment when we are passing a Bill for compelling men
  1078
  of all classes to join in the burden of military service we were to take the occasion to say: "The only class we are ready to exempt are Members of Parliament"? Whereas, of course, the great majority of us, unfortunately, are above military age, our constituents are perfectly satisfied, and very much prefer that their representatives should be doing their duty gallantly at the front rather than taking part in debates in this House. I think it would be a scandalous thing if, at such a time as this, we were to exempt Members of Parliament, as such, from the burden of military service.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I think there is some confusion between the exemption of Members of Parliament from military service and securing to them a right to attend the Debates in this House which only applies to a limited part of the year. As I understand it, all Members of Parliament have a constitutional right to attend Debates in this House, and I do not see how we could interfere with it. I do not think we ought to interfere with it, whether they are officers or private soldiers; but it is quite a different thing to say that a Member of Parliament, as such, ought to have a right to total exemption from military service. Personally, I do not think it would be setting the example to the country we ought to set if we claimed exemption for ourselves.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Conscientious Objector.)
  Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act shall cease to have effect and the following paragraph shall be substituted—
  (d) on the ground that the applicant was, before the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, a member of a recognised religious or other society one of whose tenets is opposition to combatant military service.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Major NEWMAN: I wish to move, "That the Clause be read a second time," and for one reason only. The Clause is the result of a round table conference yesterday afternoon between myself and some twenty conscientious objectors. After a good deal of discussion we agreed on this formula, and I promised to put it down by way of a new Clause, and if

  1079
  possible try to induce the President of the Local Government Board to accept it. Earlier in the evening, dealing with the case of the conscientious objectors, the right hon. Gentleman told us that what he wanted, we wanted, and the country wanted, was a formula that would distinguish between the genuine conscientious objector and the fraudulent conscientious objector. I suggest that this particular Clause of mine meets that difficulty. If the objector belonged to a recognised religious or other society, one of whose tenets is opposition to combatant service, and if he came before the tribunal and it was vouched for him that he was before this particular date—the 15th of August of last year, when the Registration Act came into force—a member of that particular society, then the tribunal would grant exemption. This particular Clause of mine would give the tribunal something to go on, somewhere where they could draw the dividing line. As it has been put down by me on behalf of genuine conscientious objectors, though some of them are over military age, I beg now to move it, and I should like to hear from the President of the Local Government Board whether he will accept it or not.
  Mr. LONG: I do not think this Clause would help us out of our difficulties very much. I do not think it would be found that it really supplies the formula for which I have asked, and so far as I am able to ascertain it really would not meet the wishes of any large proportion of those who are at present doing their best to get some kind of solution of this question.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It would limit the number.
  Mr. LONG: It would limit the number, no doubt. The hon. Gentleman said that at a meeting he had the other day this proposal was adopted by these conscientious objectors.
  Major NEWMAN: They suggested it to me.
  Mr. LONG: They were representative?
  Major NEWMAN: They were representatives of the conscientious objectors in my division.
  Mr. LONG: There is a good deal to be said for it, but as it has only just appeared on the Paper I do not think the hon. and
  1080
  gallant Gentleman can ask me to accept it now. I should like to give it more consideration if it is generally acceptable.
  Major NEWMAN: I only speak for my Division.
  Mr. LONG: Yes. Before we put it in the Bill I should like to be sure that it did not meet with any reasonable amount of opposition.
  Mr. RENDALL: I hope the Clause will not be accepted. It will only give the right of exemption to those who belong to religious societies, while a number of the best men of the country do not belong to any religious society. You are going to exclude them from their rights, and that is altogether outrageous. I have no sympathy with the conscientious objectors, but as Parliament has decided that they have rights, to limit those rights to men who join special societies is absurd.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As the right hon. Gentleman appeals for information on this point as to how far it is accepted, I wish to say that to discuss this as the basis of a settlement of the difficulty is sheer waste of time.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Sole Head of Business.)
  The principal Act shall be construed as if there were added to the grounds of exemption stated in Sub-section (1) of Section two the following paragraph:
  (e) On the ground that it is proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal—

  (i) that he is the sole head of the business;

  (ii) that there is no other person available who could carry on that business on his behalf with reasonable efficiency;

  (iii) that in the event of his being called to the Colours there is a reasonable likelihood of the said business being closed down;

  (iv) that such a man has a wife and children dependent upon the business.

  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. YEO: In rising to move, "That the Clause be read a second time," I do not desire to keep the House more than two or three minutes. I need not enter into the argument because I think the Clause itself, as set out on the Paper,

  1081
  explains exactly what we desire to bring about. We are face to face at the present time with thousands of these men who have no desire to shirk their responsibilities, or in any way to refuse to do military duty, but whose responsibilities are so serious that they feel that if they are called upon to come up, to cut their business with no one to look after it, they will have to shut down; everything would have to go, the district would suffer, and the rating authorities would suffer. I am quite sure of this, that neither the President of the Local Government Board nor any other member of the Government can realise how throughout the length and breadth of the land—from one end to the other—the liabilities that many of these men have to face would arise. There are thousands of these men who are simply bewildered as to what to do. They are told when they come before the tribunals that they must sell their businesses or get out of them. They are given a month in which to do that. We have cases before us to-day where men have sold their businesses to a company after having been refused exemption, and the companies have taken them over as managers of the same businesses, have applied and got them total exemption. I want to get this Clause accepted in order that the tribunals may have this put before them in such a way that they shall seek to deal justly and fairly with these men without crippling these hard-working tradesmen. I ask the Government if they will kindly give the Clause consideration.
  Sir STUART SAMUEL: I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to this proposal. There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that financial ruin stares these men in the face. The Government is giving the large establishments a certain proportion of their staffs to carry on; but in cases where the man's business is carried on by himself alone, if he has to go the fabric must tumble to the ground. It is all very well to tell him that his business is not of national importance. Taken in the aggregate these businesses are of national importance, and it is certainly a vital matter to the man. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Clause at least I hope he will see that there is a Regulation directing tribunals to give this matter their special consideration. I represent a constituency where there are a large number of small shopkeepers, and I have been approached in various directions. I feel
  1082
  sure there will be a great and undue hardship to many men who are quite willing to help their country if it be absolutely necessary, but until that does happen I hope they will not be taken away from their businesses.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I would like to say a word or two in support of the principle of this Amendment. I have myself handed in a manuscript Amendment dealing with the same point, and as it elaborates the point a little more fully I should like to read it. The ground of the exemption is expressed under three headings.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Four.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The one of which I have given written notice gives the grounds of exemption under three heads. First, that he is the sole head or sole remaining head, the other partners having joined the Naval or Military Forces of the Crown, of the business which he personally manages; second, that there is no other person available who could carry on the business with reasonable efficiency; third, that he has no person or persons dependent on them. It is contended, I believe, that this power is already in the possession of the tribunals in virtue of the words in Section 2 on the ground that serious hardship would ensue owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations. It is true the tribunals have power if they see fit to exercise it, and they have exercised it, but the words in the original Act are very vague and general. There is nothing definite about them. It is almost as if a man were asked what his political principles were and he were to say his political principles were faith, hope and charity. We might all give a most generous interpretation of what the political principles were which might be deduced from that general definition. In the same way, the words of the original Act are capable of the most diverse interpretation. Some tribunals may believe that they have power to grant exemption in the case stated in the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but many others have not done so in the past, and the result has been there is the greatest difference in different localities. Men are exempted on the grounds stated in my hon. Friend's Amendment in one locality, but they are not exempted on these grounds in another locality. The result is inequality and injustice. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board does not object much

  1083
  to this ground of exemption in itself. I gather that he probably thinks it is covered already by the words in the original Act and that by these words the tribunals have already got this power. If that is the line which he does take, and if he is not willing to accept this Amendment—I hope he will accept it—but if he is not willing to accept it, can he not give some lead to the tribunals with regard to the interpretation of the words of the original Act—can he give them some friendly lead or indication that the exemption of such a case is within their power if they see fit to exempt it? He has the means of giving them that lead. He has it in his power to circularise them as to the interpretation of the original Act. I do hope that he will see the reasonableness of this ground of exemption, and that he will be willing to do something to relieve the anxiety of these people, who have a great stake in the country, and who, by their business and by the taxes they pay, are helping the country at the present time.
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to support the new Clause which has been proposed by my hon. Friend, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Local Government Board) not to turn down this Clause with just a few words explaining that possibly what we desire in the new Clause is already in the main Act of Parliament. If it is in the original Act I would suggest that no harm can be done by making it more clear by putting these words in the Bill which we are now passing through Parliament. The proposition contained in this Clause affects a large and important section of the community, and I want particularly to say that so far as the whole of the correspondence I have had is concerned—and it has been a very large one—they are not men who desire to shirk responsibility in connection with military duty. They are not asking you to leave them out entirely from all responsibility of military duty. I hold in my hand a petition from a number of small traders which has come up from my Constituency, and they say, "If you like, liberate us to the extent that we can prevent our businesses, where they depend entirely upon ourselves, and where our assistants have already been taken, from being lost. Allow us to keep our businesses going, but you can put us in garrison reserve or in any other corps that you think necessary that will not take us away entirely from our occupation.
  1084
  I particularly wish to emphasise that point, because it is so different from that upon which the Debate has been going for so many hours this evening. We are not pleading for men who desire to shirk their citizen responsibility, but only for the men who feel themselves in an extraordinarily peculiar position, because their little capital, and sometimes a life's savings, are in their business, which depends on their own administration. They have their wives and children dependent upon them, and they plead therefore—not that they should be absolutely exempted, they are not asking, as the other men we have been pleading for to-night are, for absolute exemption—but that you should clearly put into the new Bill a statement that will guide the tribunals and will tell them that their case is one which should be dealt with by them, and that, if a tribunal is convinced that a good case has been made out, they should have the power to grant exemption. I do not think it is necessary to labour this point any further; we could go on with examples through the whole night; but I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it his serious consideration. If the words of my hon. Friend do not exactly fit into the Act, and I am told that perhaps they do not, there is no difficulty whatever, if the principle is accepted, in having that amended on the Report stage.
  Mr. LONG: I cannot be satisfied with the proposition that these words should go into the Act for reasons which I have given on many occasions. The reasons are these, that if in the Act you define, as you do in this Clause, a particular class of individual as being entitled to exemption, it amounts to an indication to the tribunals that those who do not correspond to this description are not entitled, even though it may be an actual fact that they may suffer quite as much as an individual described here, to exemption. I have nothing to quarrel with in this definition. It is admirably and most fairly composed. There are four conditions here which have to be fulfilled, and certainly I should say that anybody who answers to this description ought not to be called upon to go to fight.
  There is this need for some further action There can, I think, be no doubt that as you get further and further down in the supply of married men, you find a larger and increasing proportion of these men who have difficulties of this or other similar kinds, which make their service a much greater sacrifice than has been the

  1085
  case with the majority—I do not say all—of those who have gone before. I have said before, in previous Debates, that I believe that there are reasons which account, in 95 per cent. of the cases, for the non-attestation of a great many of these men. I think this is answered, as my hon. Friends know, in the instructions which we have issued—I have a copy of them here. I will not trouble the Committee with them now. We have done our best in these instructions to make it clear what are the duties of the tribunals under the Act. But I think it is desirable that some further steps should be taken, and if my hon. Friends will be content with the issue by the Department of a circular calling attention to this class of case, and to the desirability of giving careful consideration to them, I shall be quite prepared to take that step.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I am delighted to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I only want to ask him if he can do this. This Bill will become law in the course of a very few days—at least, I hope so. Unless something quite definite is stated in Regulations which are published at once, a great deal of uneasiness and difficulty will be caused, because these men will primâ facie be liable to service within a month of the passing of the Act. And if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is going to do—I am not quite sure whether he means to insert it in the Regulations—
  Mr. LONG: No, not Regulations; in a circular.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: What I am very much concerned about is this. The wide phrase which was put into the principal Act, on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, was meant to cover a number of cases which have been dealt with in this House. The words are, "owing to exceptional, financial or business obligations." I quite agree that in the case of a single man, in all probability the kind of case with which we are now dealing would be exceptional, but in the case of married men, in no sense will it be regarded as exceptional, financial or business obligations. Therefore, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see, immediately the Act is passed and before the tribunals deal with any case, that all these married men shall understand what their position is, so as not to give them a month's anxiety, and
  1086
  that he will make it quite clear that he is going to give these instructions to the tribunals.
  Mr. LONG: Yes, I will do that.
  Major NEWMAN: I should like to press on the President of the Local Government Board that he should get these instructions out at once.
  HON. MEMBERS: He has just said so.
  Mr. LONG: I have said so.
  Major NEWMAN: I know of two men who are going up to-morrow. Will the tribunal to whom they go have these particular Regulations?
  Mr. TENNANT: At once.
  Major NEWMAN: Then that is all right.
  Captain AMERY: I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration he has given to the hon. Member's Clause, because certainly this is the class in which the hardship is very often the greatest of all, namely, the case in which a man sees the whole of a life's work sacrificed. On the other hand, it is also true, from the point of view of national industry, that these are the men who can very largely be spared. They are very largely shopkeepers, whose work, from the point of view of carrying on the War, is not so essential. It is very difficult to make Regulations to meet these cases. I would suggest that, as grading is already going to be done from the financial point of view to met the hardship of the married men, whether it would not be possible to do something in the cases of men whose business is going to be closed, and where every effort is made to assist them. I would suggest that it might be possible to give them some financial assistance, which would, of course, be strictly limited, to help them to start again after the War. Perhaps, say, assistance up to a maximum of £100 could be given them after the War for the goodwill they have lost, when, after every effort has been made by the man or his wife to keep the business together, they have failed to do so.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I will not detain the Committee, but I wish to put my own point of view. It is important that this matter should be dealt with in the Regulations. I raised this matter on the previous Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then gave me a sympathetic reply. He then assured me that the case was covered by the Statute, and that he would circularise the tribunals. As a matter of

  1087
  fact, he has dealt with this matter in his circular to the tribunals, and the undertaking which we have had to-night—it is a very sympathetic one—is simply an undertaking that another circular is to be sent out. I should like to be assured as to the way in which that circular is to differ from that already issued. If it is to be on the same lines, then it will be a circular which the tribunals may disregard, as they have the previous one. In my view this matter is so important that it ought to be a matter of Regulation. I hope my hon. Friend will insist that this should go into the Act, but if he withdraws, and if it is not to be raised again on Report, we ought to have an undertaking that the matter should be dealt with by Regulation.
  1.0 A.M.
  May I specially point out that some extremely hard cases are happening. Men are told that they must dispose of their business within a month, or two or three months. They do that, at a tremendous sacrifice; they sacrifice the whole of their life's work in some cases only to find when they are called up that they are rejected as medically unfit. Then they go back and are not in a position to render any monetary service to the country. That is something which ought not to happen, and clearly some provision ought to be made to prevent it. It should also be made clear that such men should not be taken up under any consideration unless they are really fit for military service. To take men from businesses which are of great importance to them and to send them to do small clerical work is not right. Such work as is sometimes being done is a pure travesty, and the economic value of most of these men is very high, while their fighting value is comparatively very small, and I suggest that while we are all very grateful for the assurance that has been given, it ought to go farther, and we ought to be informed that the direction which shall be given is one which the tribunals will respect, and can be called upon to respect, and if it is put in the Regulations that can be done, but if it is a mere circular they may disregard it as they have disregarded the previous one.
  Sir G. CAVE: This matter cannot be dealt with by Regulations, which only deal with procedure. They cannot deal with matters of substance, such as who shall come within the Act or a Section of the Act. In my view, this case is covered
  1088
  already by the Act, namely, in the provision of the Act which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment quoted. A circular was issued some time ago calling the attention of the tribunals to that particular class of exemption. It is held that full effect may not have been given to the circular, but my right hon. Friend intends to issue a further circular calling particular attention to cases of this kind and indicating to the tribunals that they may properly deal with them under that particular ground of exemption which is in the Act already. I do not think anything more than that can be done.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: There are a great number of us who think this ought to go into the Act. You have got in this Amendment four distinct Clauses, each of which must be complied with before the man can get off. He must be the sole head of the business; there must be no other person available to carry it on; in the event of his being called to the Colours there must be a reasonable likelihood of the business having to be closed down; and the man must have wife and children dependent on him. I think there is a very strong case for the small trader, who has been having a very bad time of it during the last two years and has had to meet the organised competition of many large people, who have been doing their best to root the small trader out of existence. I happen to know that in a good many cases the tribunals have invariably let these men off if they have got these four qualifications, but there are others who have not done so, and that has created a position of inequality and, in my judgment, of gross hardship and injustice. The President of the Local Government Board just now said he had the utmost sympathy with that class of man and that he thought he was about the last that ought to be taken for the Army, and if those words could be embodied in the Act I think that would meet the case. After all, I do not think the small trader, with all these difficulties, wants to shirk. I believe he would like to go and do his duty if in the very last resort it is necessary, but at the same time I agree with the President of the Local Government Board that this is about the last man who ought to go. If we had it put in some of the Regulations—not in a circular, which some of these very self-sufficient gentlemen on these tribunals might disregard—but in the Act or in some Regulations, which would make it be attended to in every part of the country

  1089
  alike, some of us would be better satisfied. I do not wish to stretch the proceedings out, but this was the one case in the whole of these new Clauses which I confess personally I sympathised with most heartily.
  Mr. HINDS: I rise to support the view that something of this nature should go into the Act itself. We are not satisfied with the last circular. It went out, but no notice was taken of it in many tribunals, and if another goes out again it will have the same effect. There is at the present time amongst the small traders rankling in their breasts the view that the large stores are better looked after than the small stores. I have dozens of letters from the small traders, in London especially, in which they say that they are poor men with small businesses, but those businesses are of the utmost importance to them and to their families, and these men can bring instance after instance where a large number of men from large stores have been excused by tribunals, whilst they themselves are told to sell their business and go and fight for their country. I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I think there is a case here to be put in the Act itself, because the tribunals are so unequal in their treatment. What you get in one part of London is quite different from what you get in another part of London. I hope something will be done to put some words or other to cover this point in the Act itself, and not depend upon any more circulars, which I am sure will not have the least effect.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I should like to appeal to my right hon. Friend as to whether some action more effective than that of the issue of a circular could not be made use of in this case. I think every one of us in this house has had representations made to him in regard to this particular class of person, and I should like to point out that it is not merely the small tradesmen, but there are a great number of professional men who fall into the same category exactly, and I think we ought to bear in mind this consideration in dealing with this class of case. The Government during the last year or so has been advising employers to resort to the substitution of women in a thousand and one occupations, and that process has been going on to a very large degree, but we are now dealing with a class of occupation where, generally speaking, substitution of that kind is wholly imprac-
  1090
  ticable I think that consideration should be borne very carefully in mind. It has been put to me, as I suppose it has to other Members of this House, that there are numbers of small tradesmen who cannot, in point of fact, find anybody to do their work for them if they are taken to join the Colours, so I should like to see, if it were possible, that the Government would be able to take stronger action, even if they went to the extent of issuing definite directions and instructions to the tribunals to meet such cases as this, and I think, short of that, the Government ought favourably to consider the insertion of words in the Bill, either now or on the Report stage.
  Mr. D. MASON: Might I endorse the appeal which has been made. I quite appreciate what the President of the Local Government Board said about putting definite words in the Bill, as making it perhaps difficult and dangerous, because it might exclude others, but at the same time I hope the Solicitor-General can find some words beween now and the Report stage which will strengthen this very universal appeal for some more definite language than is contained in the original Act.
  The Act, of course, says, as we all know, "exceptional, financial or business obligations." I happen to have here a letter which is, I have no doubt, only one of many thousands of other similar communications which hon. Members have received. It says:
  "I am in business here as a baker and confectioner. I do not employ anyone. I bake every day, at the present time, practically all bread, and my wife assists me in the shop. All I bake is sold in the shop, and my business depends on it. All my customers seem to be working on munitions—"
  so that he is engaged on good work—
  "Except for £20, all I have is invested in the business, which I have carried on for the last six years, and I have the house and shop on a lease. I have not attested, and, considering my position and the statements of Mr. Asquith and Lord Kitchener at the passing of the first Military Service Act, I do not see why I should. I shall be forty next week, and have one child just under three years."
  That is one of hundreds of similar cases, and I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General, between now and the Report stage, will be able to draw up words which will give us some assurance of meeting these cases.
  Mr. GILBERT: I should like to support the insertion of something which would satisfy the people who complain of this particular phase of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of professional men. Anyone who knows the

  1091
  City of London is aware that there are hundreds of cases of men in charge of businesses, like agents for all kinds of businesses, which will be closed down unless you have some kind of Regulations put in the Bill, as is proposed by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo). I may say I represent a constituency where we have an enormous shopkeeping element, and I have received thousands of letters complaining of how these people will be affected. There are in London numerous small industries where you have perhaps one man and a number of women in charge of that one man. If you take the man away from a business of that kind it will mean the closing of the business, which the man may have worked up for a number of years, while you also get rid of the women employed in the business. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Local Government Board will see his way to put something in the Bill in preference to issuing a circular, because I suggest that the number of circulars which have been issued to the tribunals have got very confusing, and I am afraid that if others are issued the local tribunals will take very little notice of them.
  Mr. TENNANT: The Government are very fully alive, as the speech of the President of the Local Government Board has shown, to the gravity of the nature of this case. There is no question of that, and I am sure that is entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. The President of the Local Government Board has expressed his willingness to inform the tribunals, in perhaps a more definite manner, of the desirability of paying strict attention to the financial conditions in such cases, in the circular he has promised to issue. He has also informed the House of the difficulties that may arise from putting words into an Act of Parliament, and I should like the House to be seized of these difficulties, because they are very real. You may create hardships by the very rigidity of your definition, and, therefore, I do not wish to be taken as being inclined to believe that it is possible to arrive at a definition which will exclude all possibility of such hardship. But I will engage on behalf of the Government to have the matter considered by the Department, with a view to seeing whether such words could be found. I am not really very hopeful. However, if the House will agree that that is as fair an offer as can be made, I will make that offer, and I will consider
  1092
  between now and the Report stage whether any words are possible which would exclude the possibility of hardship, and at the same time do justice to these cases.
  Mr. YEO: I do not desire to keep the House, but I feel, personally, very strongly that this thing ought to go into the Bill, and I am rather inclined even to divide the House against the Government. I have supported them most loyally through all these Bills, but they are certainly getting the backs of some of us up. We are trying to be loyal, but if some consideration more than an ordinary circular is not shown to those who are the actual backbone of this country, we shall have to take some means to raise a storm of them. I have no desire to make any threat. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which he has considered the matter, but if the position is not satisfactory on the Report stage, we shall have to raise this question again. I assure him that I personally, and my Friends, have no desire in any way to hamper or prevent the Government getting on with the business, but to us it is a very serious matter, and I ask that if anything is done the draftsman will have the wisdom to incorporate something like this in order to give the tribunals a good lead.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Construction of Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Principal Act.)
  Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act shall be construed as if the words "financial or business obligations or" were omitted therefrom.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not know whether it is convenient to discuss this matter now. I move, "That this Clause be read a second time," in order that the Government may have an opportunity of explaining what provision is going to be made for those whose financial position is affected by this Bill? I think the last new Clause showed the necessity of having the information before the Committee stage, because the position of the men referred to

  1093
  by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo) is very much affected, of course, by what financial guarantees were given by the Government to the men affected in the way he describes. We should be in a very much better position to come to a conclusion on the last new Clause if we really had these matters before us, and I think we ought to have been in possession of them before discussing the Committee stage of this Bill. I understand the difficulties, but the question has been before the Government for four, five, or six months, and it is high time we had some definite information on these matters. At this late hour I do not suppose it would be convenient for my right hon. Friend to go into this question at length, and if it be a convenient course, I suggest putting down this Amendment for the Report stage, by which time the Government may find it possible to tell us really what provision they are going to make in cases of this kind, whether it is to be for rent, insurance or rates, and whether they are going to limit it to the £104 a year which has been indicated in the Press. Perhaps the Government will say what line they would like me to take, but I submit that before this Bill leaves the House of Commons we ought to be put in full possession of these new financial proposals.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend intends really to press this Amendment. What he desires is some statement. I do not think this would be a convenient time at which to make a detailed statement on the matter. I will just say this as a Member of the Committee dealing with the question, that the Committee which was constituted not very long ago has been working very hard on the subject and has made very great progress. The whole line of action has been laid down, and the forms are practically complete. The matter is in the printer's hands and the Committee are hoping to make an announcement and to issue a number of documents at a very early date indeed. Whether it would be possible to make a detailed statement on the Report stage of this Bill I am not quite sure. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who is Chairman of the Committee, to consider that matter. I am quite sure he will do everything he can in that direction. If it is not possible to make a statement then it will be made at the earliest possible moment. I do say this for the benefit of
  1094
  my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Yeo): I do not think he has the right to suggest or assume that the feeling for these men is not as strong on this Bench as on any other Bench. We are not in the least influenced by that kind of language, but by the conviction which we hold ourselves as strongly as any other Members—and with as full a knowledge as any other Members—of the very real hardship to the class to which my hon. Friend has referred. What we are doing is being done in the greatest sincerity and with the greatest desire to make it effective.
  Mr. YEO: I assure the right hon. Gentleman I had no desire to cast any aspersion on the right hon. Gentlemen or to question their sincerity.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificate of Exemption.)
  Where an individual certificate of exemption has been granted to a man on the ground that he is employed or engaged in work which has been certified by a Government Department to be work of national importance and the certificate ceases to be in force owing to the occupation having ceased to be so certified, or owing to the imposition of conditions as to age or otherwise with which the man does not comply, the right of renewal of the certificate of exemption held by the man shall be limited to an application on the grounds specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the principal Act.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I do not know whether the learned Solicitor-General has read this Amendment. It refers to a small but, as I submit, a rather important point. As he is aware, the Government Departments determine that certain work is of national importance, and certify that that work is of national importance, and a man, as long as he is employed in that work, is exempt from the provisions of the Act. When the work ceases to be certified as of national importance, or when the workman fails to comply with certain conditions of his exemption, he then goes back to the tribunal. The effect of this Amendment is to deprive him of

  1095
  the opportunity of applying for exemption under paragraph (a) of Section 2 of the original Act, and I submit that under the circumstances detailed in this Amendment he ought not to avail himself of (a), but ought to confine himself to (b), (c), and (d), because the Government having said that his work is no longer of national importance it ought not to be open for the tribunal to say that it is. Surely a Government Department having decided once for all that the work is no longer of national importance, it ought not to be open to the tribunal to decide in a contrary sense. I therefore submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and hope the Government will accept it.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend has quite appreciated the effect of this new Clause. He takes the case of a man whose occupation has been starred as one of national importance, but is afterwards removed from the starred list, and whose exemption would therefore come to an end. He proposes in such a case that the man shall not have an individual right to apply for exemption on the ground stated under letter (a), Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the principal Act. If the Amendment is passed, no man who falls within it can make application for exemption on a ground specially applying to himself. That would not be quite fair, because the man, when in a reserved occupation, would naturally not apply for exemption on any ground of individual hardship. If his occupation ceases to be starred, he ought to be entitled to make his individual claim whatever it may be, and to put it forward on private grounds. He ought not to be in a worse position in regard to his private claim than those who do not happen ever to have been in a starred occupation. I think, if the matter is carefully considered, it will be seen that this Amendment would act unfairly in certain individual cases, and I hope, for the reason I have given, my hon. and learned Friend will not press it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditional Certificate of Exemption.)
  That the provision in Sub-section (3), Section 2, of the principal Act, that no certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon the person to whom it is granted continuing in or entering into
  1096
  employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment, shall not apply to a certificate for exemption granted on the ground of a conscientious objection to undertaking combatant service.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I submitted this Amendment this afternoon to the President of the Local Government Board and also brought it to the notice of the learned Solicitor-General. It is a proposal to amend Sub-section (3), Section 2, of the original Act. I bring this Amendment forward as a result of what took place at the Appeal Tribunal of which I am a member. The tribunal found themselves in great difficulty in dealing with the conscientious objector who was set to do work of national importance. Unquestionably he comes under that Subsection in Clause 2 of the principal Act. which prevents a tribunal giving a man exemption on the ground that he remains in a particular employment. The Section was introduced at the request of the Labour party, who feared industrial compulsion. But it makes it quite impossible for the tribunal effectively to carry out their duty in a case in which they wish to send a man to do work of national importance and give him relief from non-combatant service. There is the case of one of the Christadelphians who was exempted from both combatant and non-combatant service and was sent to work on a farm. We could only send him into that particular occupation, but we could not send him to it for any specified time. We did not wish to do that, but our difficulty is that if he leaves the farm after a month we cannot get hold of him. I do not think we have any power over him. It seems to us we ought to have the power to see that that man continues in some work of national importance. I have brought this Amendment to-night under the notice of the Member for Leeds, who has been dealing with this question on the Committee, and he quite supports it. So does the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division. I hope the Government will accept this. I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to take it now. If he would like a little time to consider it, I should be very glad to put it down for considera-

  1097
  tion on the Report stage. If he wishes me to take that course, I hope he will be satisfied, and also the House, that it is essential to have that power of exemption. I beg to move.
  Sir G. CAVE: This raises a most important question. I think, however, that for the convenience of the whole House it would be better if we could see the proposal before it comes to be considered. I think the hon. Baronet is willing to put it down for the Report stage.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, I beg leave to withdraw.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificates of Exemption.)
  [Sub-section (1b) of Section two of the principal Act shall be construed as if the words "or duties connected with trade union organisation" were added to the Sub-section.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. T. WILSON: This Clause stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester, and in moving it I would make an appeal to the House and the Government to recognise that a very large number of the men whom it will affect have been doing extremely good and useful service, not only in connection with recruiting, but also in taking a very active part in settling disputes which have arisen in connection with Government work. They enjoy the confidence of the men engaged in the shipyards, coal mines, munition works, and in work done on behalf of the Government by contractors—on behalf of the nation I should say—in connection with the War. It might be said that their places can be filled, but it would be extremely difficult to fill their places for the simple reason that they have gained the confidence of the men. The men trust them in settling any dispute that may arise between them and their employers or between them and any Government Department. We think that these men would be doing a great deal better work for the nation where they are than if they were taken from that work and put into the Army. I appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to gave his favourable consideration to the
  1098
  Clause I am moving. I am not suggesting that every trade union official should be exempted from military service; but I suggest, in connection with this new Clause, that the Government might approach the executive committee or the executive councils of the various trade organisations and ask them to schedule—if you like—those men or officials whom they consider indispensable for this work.
  I should like to say that some of the officials I have referred to are dealing with work, for instance, such as that of the Insurance Act. Ever since that Act was passed they have been engaged in administering it. Those hon. Members who have had anything whatever to do with the Insurance Act will agree with me when I say that it is impossible for a man to jump into the work of administering that Act right away. It is necessary to train the men to do the work properly. Speaking as a member of a Trade Union I know very well that unions have been pulled up time and time again by the Commissioners and the auditors for the Commissioners in connection with the work done. I trust that, if the Government are not prepared to accept this Clause now, they will agree to make some provision, either in Regulations or on the Report stage, to safeguard the interests—not of the Trade Unions alone, and least of all of the men themselves—but to safeguard the interests of the nation. When I say that I mean this, that these men have, to my own knowledge and to that of the War Office and the Munitions Department, prevented strikes from taking place in connection with work carried out for the Government. And I do say that men who prevent strikes at the present time are carrying out work of national importance, and ought to have their claims—or societies which they represent ought to have the claims—for the services of these men recognised. Therefore, I commend this Clause to the favourable consideration of the House. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  Sir G. CAVE.I do not want to take any formal point, but I gather that really the hon. Gentleman seeks to bring this, proposal in under B, Cases of serious hardship owing to financial obligations, but in his argument he connected it with A.
  Mr. WILSON: If I put an Amendment down I shall put it town under A.
  Sir G. CAVE: I should be the last person not to admit that the trade unions and their officials, many of them, have done most excellent work during the War, and I do not wish for a moment to quarrel with anything the hon. Member said under that head. But he will see that it is a little invidious and a little dangerous to make a special exception of men who are in some particular occupation of this kind. If you make an exception of trade union officials you will have other classes making similar claims.
  Mr. WILSON: The banks are doing it for their people.
  Sir G. CAVE: No doubt the claims are made. The hon. Gentleman and his Friends are quite at liberty to represent to the tribunals that these men are doing work of national importance and should be exempted. It is another thing to put into an Act of Parliament words exempting a class of men engaged in a certain work. If we agree to this proposal we shall have other claims. Friendly societies and other institutions of that kind would ask—I do not say they could make out as good a case—but we should never get to the end. We cannot put in this Bill such an exemption as the hon. Member proposes, but I do not in the least desire to discourage him or his Friends from making any application to the local tribunal.
  Mr. WILSON: I fully recognise the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I do not wish to press the matter any further. I have voiced the views of the people who wished this Clause put down. I know that the Government fully recognise the work these people have been doing, and I ask leave to withdraw.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Gas Provisional Orders Bill,
Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendments,
Colonial Bank Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act for the restitution in blood of the heirs of the late Reginald Gervase
1100
Alexander so far as relates to the Honour and Dignity of the Barony of Cobham." [Alexander's Restitution Bill [Lords].

ALEXANDER'S RESTITUTION BILL.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Message from the Lords that they have passed the Alexander's Restitution Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House. Have you the King's consent?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the first time."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the first time; read a second time.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in accordance with custom, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
Mr. KING: What is this Bill that has been referred to us? I do not know what the object of it is, and I think we ought to have some explanation of it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late. We cannot discuss that on the Motion for a Select Committee.
Mr. KING: I am one of the very few private Members who has taken an interest in this, and I think we ought to be given an explanation.
Sir G. CAVE: We are following the regular procedure, which has been very carefully investigated, dealing with these Bills, which very rarely occur. It is the Alexander's Restitution Bill, and it relates to the Barony of Cobham, which in the days of James I. was forfeited by the then Lord Cobham and George Brooke, his brother and heir, for high treason. Recently the full procedure has been gone through with a view to the restitution to the members of that family of their honours and their position. It has passed the other House of Parliament, and in accordance with precedent it comes down here and has to be sent to a Special Committee. We are following the ordinary course.
Mr. KING: I do not see it on the Order Papers.
Sir G. CAVE: It is never there.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: By the procedure of the House a Bill of this kind, coming down from the other House with

1101
the King's consent, is immediately taken into consideration, read a first and a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. E. HARVEY: Will this be an Act of Grace when it becomes law?
Mr. KING: May I appeal to the Government to put this, off for a future occasion? It really seems to me a very extraordinary thing to take it at two o'clock in the morning. There can be no haste about it whatever.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I said just now, under the procedure of this House a Bill of this character coming down from the other House must be immediately taken into consideration.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.
Committee nominated of the Attorney-General, Mr. Barnes, Sir Edward Carson, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Finlay, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Sir John Simon, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—[Sir G. Cave.]
Bill to be printed. [Bill 42.]
It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Sixteen minutes before Two a.m., Friday, 12th May, till Monday next, 15th May, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February last.

WAR.
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE BOUNTY).
  ROYAL NAVY (PRIZE BOUNTY).
  BRITISH AND NEUTRAL VESSELS TORPEDOED.
  BRITISH AND NEUTRAL VESSELS TORPEDOED.
  PASSENGERS TO IRELAND (ALIEN PERMITS).
  PASSENGERS TO IRELAND (ALIEN PERMITS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  SOLDIERS RE-EXGAGING (BOUNTY).
  SOLDIERS RE-EXGAGING (BOUNTY).
MUNITIONS.
  STRIKES AMONG WORKMEN.
  STRIKES AMONG WORKMEN.
  BRITISH SHIPS LAUNCHED.
  BRITISH SHIPS LAUNCHED.
  BRITISH SHIPS TRADING.
  BRITISH SHIPS TRADING.
  MERCANTILE MARINE (NEW TONNAGE).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (NEW TONNAGE).
  BARLEY AND MALT (EXPORTS).
  BARLEY AND MALT (EXPORTS).
  RUBBER TYRES.
  RUBBER TYRES.
  HIGH TREASON (FORM OF INDICTMENT).
  HIGH TREASON (FORM OF INDICTMENT).
  POLISH VICTIMS RELIEF FUND.
  POLISH VICTIMS RELIEF FUND.
LECKY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Thursday the 25 th instant: The usual Orders made.
GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DIS- TRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Agricultural Statistics (Ireland)—Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, for the year 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915 (Temporary Importation of Motor Cars)—The Motor Cars (Temporary Importation) Regulations, made by the Treasury under Section 13 (6) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915:
Police Act, 1890—Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State's certificate, under Section 17 (2) of the Act, to the Tyne River Police Force, for the year ended 29th September 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I ask leave to correct a mistake which has rather troubled me. I have been reported in a number of newspapers this morning to have said, in the debate last night, to Lord Crewe, that he ought not to lead the House. That would have been a very rude thing, if I had said it. I did not say it. My statement merely was that I did not believe the House would agree with him, which was a very different thing. It must have been my fault in not speaking clearly enough.

THE SINN FEIN REBELLION.
Debate upon the Motion of the Earl Loreburn, "That this House records its profound dissatisfaction with the administration of affairs in Ireland," resumed (according to Order).
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, it is stated that those who criticise the Government have in their mind a desire to wreck the Government. I do not agree with that sentiment. Those who criticise want to make the Government stronger. We want to induce them to desert their timidity, and to prevent them from wrecking the Empire. The result of their timidity has lately been exemplified in three principal cases in one week. Their Military Service Bill was thrown out in the House of Commons, there was the surrender of Kut, and then the Irish rebellion. I agree with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, that the fault is largely that of Parliament, because there has been little or no criticism in either House where disasters have occurred which were quite preventable had there been criticism beforehand, and had the Government not stuck to their policy of secrecy which has so distinguished them during the time they have been in office. The noble Marquess who leads the House appears to wish to maintain this secrecy. It apparently is the case that none of the Cabinet can get out of the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister—the policy of "Wait and See." But I would ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks, if we do wait and if we agree to postpone this discussion, as he asked the House to do, he will convince anybody in this House or out of it that the affairs of Ireland have been properly administered during the last set of years. You see the result of the "Wait and See" policy. Dublin is wrecked, there have been hundreds of innocent victims, and there have been brutal and cold-blooded murders in Ireland. I think it would be more dignified if the Government were to admit, before the Division is taken, that Lord Loreburn is right in the sentiment he has expressed in his Motion.
It was almost pathetic the other day to see my noble friend Lord Lansdowne trying to explain the tragedy of Ireland. He read a telegram from the Lord Lieutenant, dated April 26, the rebellion having been on the 24th. "The Lord Lieutenant," said the noble Marquess, "was able to report that the situation was on the whole

1003
satisfactory, and that the provincial news was reassuring." How entirely misleading was that statement was shown yesterday in this debate by Peers from Ireland, who reported the gravity of the circumstances both in Dublin and in the provinces. I think we must have an erratum in the dictionary to show the new meanings of the words "reassuring" and "satisfactory"—certainly in this sense they are totally different from the meanings which I was taught when I was a boy.
This is no Party debate, because the noble and learned Earl who made the Motion is a Home Ruler, and I do not suppose that ever in such tragic circumstances as have occurred, the Government so palpably being responsible for them, could we have heard a debate initiated in more temperate and dignified language. The fact is that the rebellion was far more serious than is generally known. It failed from want of leadership of the rebels, and because of the brilliant handling of the troops. The rebels could easily have taken Dublin; there were no soldiers there; they could have cut the wires and the whole city would have been in their hands. The whole country, North, South, East, and West could have rise. Sinn Feiners were only waiting to see what occurred in Dublin. I am firmly of opinion that had not Sir Roger Casement been taken and the ammunition ship sunk, thanks to the splendid watchfulness of the British Navy, there would have been risings in the South and throughout Ireland. They would have required thousands of troops to suppress them, and there would have been a terrible loss of life and frightful destruction of property.
The trouble has really been caused by the class of men whom the British Government have sent to rule Ireland in recent years. I know my country well, and am proud of my countrymen. They are a very impulsive though generous race, and easily led, and the people sent over to govern Ireland were totally incapable of governing the country. They apparently had no sense of duty, because they were nearly always over in this country, and were over here within a few days of the trouble—indeed, the principal officer was over here when the trouble commenced. The last Administration sent to Ireland was the weakest that country has ever had. When did the Sinn Fein trouble date from? It really began with the Larkin riots. Perhaps your Lordships do not know how serious those
1004
riots were. Dublin at that time was entirely in the hands of these men. It is inconceivable, but the military could not move about that city without passes from Larkin. That is a positive fact; and it is more inconceivable that during the time when Larkin was really the King of Dublin, giving orders, submitting passes, allowing people to move about under his written authority—during that time such extraordinary insanity appeared to possess the rulers of Ireland that Larkin was actually asked to tea in Dublin Castle. I know it sounds absurd, and I am not surprised that your Lordships laugh. Can it be wondered at that you have troubles in a country like Ireland in such circumstances?
In his Motion Lord Loreburn refers to the administration of affairs in Ireland, and if your Lordships will allow me I will go back a little, because it is impossible to lead up to the late circumstances without some reference to what preceded them. The first foundation of this trouble in Ireland was when the Arms Act was repealed. The Opposition warned the Government of that day what would occur, and what the Opposition said has occurred. I have great sympathy with Mr. Birrell after his manly confession, knowing him well, being a friend of his, and perfectly appreciating those characteristics which have endeared him to so many. But if he were my own brother I would remove all my sympathy from him on public questions when the lives of the people in his charge have been ruthlessly sacrificed through maladministration. I charge him with being directly responsible for having turned a peaceful country into a country seething with sedition and irritation and all the old angry sectarian and racial feelings. In Mr. Birrell's own words, when he took office Ireland was then "more peaceful and prosperous than it had been for 600 years." Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon, whom I like as Irishmen though I abhor their politics, said much the same thing. Mr. Redmond said the country at that time was "peaceful beyond record," and Mr. Dillon said it "never was so quiet and so devoid of crime." How did this satisfactory state of things come about? It came about simply because the question of Ireland was recognised as being the question of the land—that is the whole Irish question from beginning to end. Land Purchase brought about this good state of affairs. Protestant and Catholic farmers met, and all sectarian

1005
differences had died out. They were both making money, they were never so prosperous; and at this moment there are no peasantry, no tenant farmers, no agricultural people in the world as well off as the Irish farmers. As I say, these sectarian differences had disappeared. I was in the first Home Rule election in 1872, before the Ballot. I remember it well in County Kerry, when the priests and the landed proprietors in the greater part of the county were against Home Rule. I remember that a carpet-bagger got in, and one of the landed gentry, a most respected gentleman in Kerry, was put out. Home Rule gradually died down, and was afterwards resuscitated directly Michael Davitt tackled the land question under Home Rule action. In 1886 Mr. Parnell said—
"Get Home Rule and you get the question of Ireland—that is, the question of the land."
I am not going into Irish history, but am leading up to what I want to say about Mr. Birrell.
The next thing that Mr. Birrell did was to stop Irish land purchase, and how did he stop it? He reduced the benefit both to the landlord and the tenant. Thus began the irritation, the agitation, the renewal of the old seething conditions of my country, which hitherto bad been acknowledged peaceable. All the old racial animosities were revived, and this resulted in the Sinn Fein movement. Again and again were the Government warned about the Sinn Fein agitation. My noble friend Lord Midleton, to his lasting credit, never rested for months. He not only went to the Chief Secretary, but he went to the Lord Lieutenant, to the Prime Minister, and to all the other officials concerned. And what did they do? Nothing. On March 15 my noble friend went to the Irish Government, and it is regrettable, after all the warnings that he gave, that Mr. Birrell and the Irish Government, or most of them, remained over here. I agree with Lord Loreburn that the Cabinet is responsible. It is neither fair, nor generous, nor right that we should fasten the whole of our criticisms—and they ought to be strong criticisms—on to Mr. Birrell. The Cabinet is responsible, and the principal man in the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, is the most responsible. I will take a seaman's metaphor. The pilot takes the ship into harbour, the pilot takes the ship over the bar and through dangerous waters, but if the ship is run ashore or any other accident happens the captain is tried by Court
1006
Martial, not the pilot. That is the right principle, and we are here as a sort of Court-Martial to try the Prime Minister and the whole of the Cabinet.
Nearly two years ago every Irishman, whether a so-called loyalist or a so-called disloyalist, knew that if the Sinn Fein leaders were not arrested and the movement put down, there must be a rising in Ireland. Warnings were given over and over again, but no notice was taken of them. Mr. Birrell himself has stated that he knew all the facts. What did he do? Nothing. And his excuse was that he did nothing "in order to maintain the unity of Ireland." There is always something comic in my country, but there never was a more comical statement made by a Minister of the Crown than that. Why he actually allowed mauccuvres, a rehearsing of Easter Monday's rebellion, to be carried out before Easter Monday. The police warned the Castle, Scotland Yard knew all about it, but nothing was done. Mr. Birrell remained over here. Is any noble Lord going to get up and tell me that the Prime Minister did not know what was going on? Of course, he knew. But he adopted the old policy "Wait and See"— wait and see what they will do. What have they done? They have put Dublin in ruins, and not only are many of these unfortunate people killed, but there are 600 casualties among our troops.
There were other warnings. The public organisation of the Sinn Feiners was noticed in all the Press. There were published statements by their leaders as to what they would do. Posters were put up all over Ireland, and seditious meetings were held, all of which were reported by the police. Still nothing was done. Notwithstanding all these incidents, no precaution whatever was taken. Some people are trying to make out that the blame, as far as the arming of the rebels goes, is to be laid on Ulster. There is a crucial difference between Ulster sentiment and Sinn Fein sentiment. Ulster is loyal to the Crown and to the Empire—I do not say it was loyal to the Government; I will come to that directly. The Sinn Fein rebellion was a rebellion to assist our enemies in the middle of a war and against the Crown and the Empire—a very serious difference. Though I am an Ulsterman and would have joined the Ulstermen if there had been a so-called rebellion against the Government, I do not say I would have been right and. I do not say they were

1007
right, but I do say that bad laws provoke outbreaks. I will compare it to the Services. There is nothing more splendid, more loyal, or better than the discipline in the Services; but if you had bad discipline you could make the best regiment mutiny in a week and the best ship's company mutiny in a week. Those things are very parallel. But there is no parallel of any description between Ulster arming and Ulster motives, and the Sinn Fein arming and Sinn Fein motives. Had the Irish Government, represented by Mr. Birrell, chosen to arrest the Sinn Fein leaders and squash the rebellion, which could have been done, they would in that action have had the support, not only of all the loyal people in Ireland, but of all the Nationalists and everybody else in Ireland who wished to preserve law and order.
I warn the Government that the same sort of thing is going on in this country at this moment. At Glasgow last Sunday there were eleven platforms and thousands of people, and from every platform was preached sedition of the most serious description. "Stop the war," "The war is a capitalist war," and seditious sentences of that character were indulged in. Are the Government going to allow that to go on the same as they did in Ireland? I give them grave warning that they will have trouble over here unless they are very careful. The Government have a large number of labour men with them who are totally opposed to these people, but I suppose they are going again to desert their friends in order to appease their enemies. Why cannot the Government tell the people the truth? The working men of this country have behaved splendidly. Go and look at them in the trenches, where I have seen them myself. Look what they have clone for their country. A man cannot give more than his life for his country, and these men are prepared to do that. But the sort of thing to which I have called attention is going on in this country just the same as with the Sinn Feiners in Ireland, and the Government will have serious trouble unless they consult the real labour leaders. There are eight of them who are prepared to go any length to win the war. Let the Government consult them as to how all this sedition can be stopped.
There is one bright spot in the whole of this Irish rebellion, and that is the splendid and loyal way in which the Irish regiments behaved, notwithstanding the temptations
1008
to which they were subjected. There is another bright spot. The Nationalists kept aloof. I believe that in some cases they offered to take up positions in certain parts of the country in order that no rebellion should occur. That is to their credit. But what shines above all is the behaviour of the Irish police. They were perfectly splendid. Loyal, chivalrous, and gallant, they were shot down in cold blood. Nothing in war has been better than the behaviour of those policemen—I think they numbered ten or fourteen—in Meath who held out till their last cartridge. Nothing has given more pride to Irishmen than the behaviour of the Irish police during these sad times.
Now with regard to the future. Sir Edward Carson said the other day that no true Irishman would entertain any sentiment of vengeance or of vindictiveness towards those who had been duped into this terrible affair. I say this, that any man who can be proved to have committed a cold-blooded murder should be tried for his life, and if it is proved that he did commit that murder he must sacrifice his life. Other cases will, I hope, soon be placed before the legal authorities. No sailor or soldier likes to have in his hands the question of life or death, no matter in what circumstances, but more particularly in cold blood. When you go into action you have to kill whom you can or be killed. But Martial Law was necessary, and may be necessary for some time yet, though it is not a law which the soldier or sailor likes. We would prefer that the people should be tried publicly before the proper judicial authorities as soon as possible. But until the country is quiet, until the military and the other authorities over there, particularly the police, can say that innocent people are no longer in danger of their lives, I think the Government would be wise to maintain Martial Law for the present.
Your Lordships were told yesterday that the Viceroy had resigned. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Donoughmore or with Lord Oranmore that the Viceroy is not responsible. I do not see what he is there for if he is not responsible. It most certainly is a great support to me in the opinion I have held for many years that the Viceroy should be done away with. What on earth you want a Lord Lieutenant, with his sham Court, in Dublin for I do not know. He is a danger there if he is supposed to have

1009
responsibility and has none. I hope the Government will take earnestly into their consideration the question of remodelling the Government of Ireland and doing away with the sham Court and the Viceroy. Nobody wants them. They should be done away with and a Secretary appointed for Ireland, responsible to the Cabinet, the same as you have for Scotland.
The Government's record, speaking of administration, is very bad, and has been far worse since the Coalition. I said in this House during the Blockade Debate that a Coalition must be the worst form of Government because it is always compromising. Never have a Government shown compromise in their actions more clearly than this Government. You cannot win a war on compromises. The career of the Coalition Government has been illustrated and illuminated with disasters, retreats, and surrenders, and it has ended up with the Irish rebellion. Every one of these disasters was preventable, and could have brim prevented if what Lord Loreburn suggested had been carried out and there hail been less secrecy. The people should be told the whole truth. They will then back up the Government to a man, except the few conscientious objectors, who never found that they had a conscience until they were required to fight for their country. I hope that the noble and learned Earl will press his Motion to a Division if only for this reason, that it would be very interesting to this country and this House to see who the Peers arc who think that the administration of Ireland has been good during the last ten years.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, I confess that I came down to the House yesterday with a strong feeling that the Motion under discussion was a mistaken one, bearing as it did some resemblance to that kind of Vote of Censure or Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government which is one of the harmless playthings of the Parliamentarian in time of peace but should be very sparingly used in the middle of a great war. But I confess that the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, and the speeches that have proceeded from some of those noble. Lords who know Ireland best and love her best have greatly changed my mind upon that point. The discussion has been one of great public value, and the criticism of the Government has been entirely consistent with what I am sure is the desire of the
1010
people of this country—that the Government, charged with their enormous responsibility in this war, should not be assailed with any manner of criticism which puts their existence as a Government in peril. Nevertheless I think that something more may well be added in this debate from the point of view of those Englishmen who sympathise intensely with the loyal Irish Nationalists.
I happen to speak in this debate from the point of view of an old and a very impenitent English Home Ruler, and I speak not because T suppose I know anything much about Ireland. I speak, on the contrary, with that sense of my ignorance in regard to Ireland which I think every Englishman ought to feel in speaking of that country. But I do speak because I think that the point of view from which the matter presents itself, as I believe, to the great majority of strong and convinced English Home Rulers ought to have free expression in this House. I think it is the unanimous opinion, not only of your Lordships, but of almost the whole country, that a great error has pervaded the spirit of the Administration in Ireland, an error which I may describe as a tendency to unprincipled laxity in dealing with crime, large or small, for the sake of sonic supposed pacifying influence which that laxity may have upon the public mind. That, I think, describes tersely and accurately the spirit that has prevailed in the Irish Administration. It is a perfectly intelligible spirit, but it is everlastingly wrong. It is rooted in injustice and cruelty towards the ordinary law-abiding citizen.
That error, in my opinion, may be traced a long way back. We saw its small beginnings at least as far back as the days when the minor illegality of cattle-driving was rife in Ireland. There has for a long time been this tendency to let off clear and most unjustifiable breaches of the law lightly on the ground of some supposed soothing influence which that procedure may produce. It is an error from every possible point of view. What I wish particularly to say is that it is an error, above all, from the point of view of the English Home Ruler. It is an intelligible position, right or wrong, that the people of Ireland should have their full and fair share of self-government within this great Empire of self-governing peoples. It is also an intelligible point of view that the Irish should be treated as a childish and irresponsible

1011
people amongst whom lawlessness may rightly sometimes be humoured, as sometimes has to be done in our dealings with some barbarous frontier tribe. But it is not intelligible and justifiable to hold those two points of view at once. The two are absolutely fatal to one another. I speak with some consciousness of ignorance with regard to the details of Irish life; vet, after all, human nature in Ireland is in some degree analogous to human nature everywhere else, and there are one or two things that I desire to say in regard to the present crisis.
I hope that in whatever repressive measures the Government now take in Ireland they will not be swayed in the least degree by the illusion of some political effect to be produced by a policy either of terror on the one hand or of clemency on the other. There is—I am quite sure the Government themselves will feel it—no possible good effect that can be produced on the public mind in Ireland or anywhere else, in dealing with disasters of this nature, except the policy of even-handed justice in individual cases. The noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, referred last night to the precedent of the American Civil War and the unexampled clemency with which the uprising of the Southern States was in the end put down. I was very glad that he recalled that precedent to our minds. That glorious episode in history, the American Civil War, was brought to an end with unexampled clemency, broadmindedness, and charity on the part of President Lincoln and of the Generals who served in it. But there is an important distinction to be noted between a case like that and the present case, and I am sure that if Lord Bryce were here he would not correct me upon this point. Wrong-headed as the uprising of the Southern States in my opinion was, it could not with decency have been regarded as a rebellion at all. The singular fact about that war was that while the whole of the people of the North regarded themselves as owing a supreme and over-riding allegiance to the Union of the States, the whole of the people of the South, without exception, regarded themselves not as rebels at all but as persons owing a supreme allegiance to the particular State of which they happened to be citizens. And the men who took the most prominent part, as soldiers at any rate, in that great uprising did so, not from any approval on their own part of the wisdom of that up
1012
rising, but because they conceived themselves bound to fight for the particular State in which they were born. In law they may or may not have been rebels—I fancy they were—but it is perfectly certain that in their own minds these people were not rebels at all, but the leaders of the uprising were men acting under the dictates of the only loyalty which they in their consciences recognised. That is not the case in the present rebellion in Ireland. Therefore the result is that there is not only the necessity in this case of just punishments for acts of private murder which no political motive can in the least remove from the category of murder, and which I am told have too plentifully occurred during this uprising, but there is also the necessity—quite distinguishing it from any such cases as that to which Lord Bryce referred—of treating the leaders of this rebellion with a just severity; for, indeed, some of these men have been guilty of perhaps the most atrocious crime that can be conceived. It would be an injustice that the dupe who has committed however brutal an act of homicide under their leadership should be punished and that the men in the first degree responsible should be treated with any undue clemency. We cannot get away from the fact that this uprising is destitute in an unparalleled degree of those qualities appealing to human sympathy which very often, and indeed most often, characterise rebellions, and we cannot overlook the fact that there must be a certain severity in regard to the ringleaders in this case. I thought it might be as well, in view of the noble Viscount's moving appeal On this matter, to point out this distinction.
I do not know whether the men who, either from the nature of their actions or from the leading part that they have taken in the movement as a whole, require to be dealt with severely are few or many in number. Nor do I care particularly whether what I may call the standard of guilt which those who are dealing with this outbreak may have in their minds should be fixed high or low. My feeling, and the feelings of all your Lordships, would be in that respect in favour of the utmost leniency that is safe. What I do wish to urge, and I hope that my point is made clear, is that there shall be no standard meted out but that of a justice applied to individual cases which is absolutely even-handed and which takes each individual case on its merits. Therefore while I am sure we all

1013
look back with sorrow on the kind of acts of repression which occurred in the old Rebellion of 1798, and while we would wish to make it clear that the feelings of indiscriminate anger which often animated Englishmen then do not animate us in the least degree to-day with regard to Ireland, nevertheless I listen with a slight degree of apprehension when people use such phrases as, for example, that they hope there will be an end soon to these military proceedings and punishments. Of course, in a sense it is a platitude to hope that they may end soon. But do not let it be forgotten for one moment that, however merciful, rigid and even-handed justice has to be done in this matter.
I do not know how long it may be necessary, having regard to circumstances in Ireland, to continue Martial Law. I have no prejudice in favour of Martial Law, but I hope that we shall put aside what appears to be an entirely superstitious horror which sometimes attaches to the phrase Martial Law. A Court-Martial is not necessarily a bad tribunal. Any one of us who was guilty of a public offence would rather be shot than hanged if he had to be put to death. More than that, almost any one of us who was innocently accused of a seditious offence would far rather be tried by a good Court-Martial than by a packed jury. I do not want to dwell on that point—my experience of Irish justice is not sufficient—but I have this strong impression, that of all methods of justice the most objectionable is that of a packed jury, or jury which is publicly supposed to be packed, and that a Court-Martial is a far better engine for the purpose in hand.
There is this suggestion that occurs to me. Some reference has been made, in debates. I think in the House of Commons, to the secrecy of procedure in a Court-Martial. Surely it would be a very desirable thing if it were possible that a record of the proceedings, in every case at any rate in which the sentence of death or any other heavy penalty has been imposed, should be made public; that it should be perfectly well known to the public and to the world what is the character and the degree of the guilt of the man of whom example is made. I do not know whether that suggestion is practicable, but I trust it may be. I believe that it would have a considerable effect in making it plain to Ireland and to the world that the procedure
1014
of the Government is just. Far beyond that, however, I would wish to urge this—that the Government of Ireland in this perilous crisis, which I am afraid cannot be considered as yet at an end, should not be swayed and should not seem to be swayed by any political influence or to be specially influenced by any section into which political thought in Ireland and this country has in the past been divided. There is a certain danger even in this debate, and in debates such as have occurred and are likely to occur in the House of Commons, that the Government in its procedure in Ireland may seem to be swayed one inch to this side or to that side by the pressure of feeling in Parliament or by regard for some political party or for some political influence of some kind. It is not for me to suggest the details of how it should be done, but I venture to urge upon the Government, who I am sure are likely to be well aware of it, the expediency as far as possible of removing the Administration of Ireland now from the supposition of being under any sectional interest or influence, be it Unionist or be it Nationalist. Do not let it appear that they are specially advised by Mr. Redmond, or that they are specially advised by any other leader identified with any section of opinion in Ireland or in this country.
I happen to have mentioned Mr. Redmond, and as I have done so may I be pardoned if I digress for one moment to express a feeling which I believe every member of your Lordships' House will share, however widely they may disagree with that gentleman. There is in this painful state of affairs in Ireland no person who as a man is so entitled to or is so certain to receive the personal sympathy of us all as the Nationalist leader, Mr. John Redmond. However that may be, it is of prime necessity, it seems to me, that the Administration of Ireland now, both in respect of the persons to whom it is entrusted and of the methods by which it is to be carried on, shall be as far as possible exempt, and obviously and patently exempt, from the sway of any political influence whatsoever.
I desire, in conclusion, to say a few words about that to which I alluded when I rose —the character of this debate. I do so because I think our proceedings on this occasion are exposed to a certain amount of possible misconstruction out of doors. When at the commencement of the war

1015
the country demanded that Party warfare should be dropped, it was dropped; not only Party warfare but Party itself and the spirit of Party has gone, and gone so absolutely that it never can return, at any rate in the form that it had before. And when noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite to a certain extent and in an informal manner organise, as I believe they do, debates such as this, they do so as I believe not as representing any particular former Party in this House, but as representing, so far as that is possible, the unofficial members of this House as a whole.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I think it well that the public who watch these debates should understand clearly that this is so. The country demands something more than that Party should go. The whole spirit of Parliamentary proceedings should be greatly modified. There exists out of doors in some quarters, in this excitable quarter and that, a disposition to continue agitation against the life of the present Administration. I do not know what importance may be attached to that agitation, probably not a very great importance, but it exists; it is perfectly honest, it is perfectly legitimate however unwise it may be, and to the extent to which it exists it is, I need not say, immensely exaggerated in other fussy quarters which take upon themselves the championship of the existing Administration. It is, I think, a necessity of Government in war time that we should be able to express our opinions and our criticisms freely and strongly without its being supposed that in criticising the Government or in urging upon them opinions which they may not see fit to follow we are necessarily in any degree paving the way towards any termination of the Government's existence or even any substantial change in its character. It may or may not he the case that some of us on one side or the other would desire to see changes in the character of the Administration. I have nothing to do with that. But the country generally does regard His Majesty's Government, critically no doubt, but in a very loyal spirit, disposed to see many weaknesses and many mistakes on its part but disposed nevertheless to recognise its services very loyally and very gratefully
1016
and to leave its authority and its existence unimpaired and unchanged. I believe, as I say, that this Motion should go to a Division. I believe it will be carried as representing the unanimous feeling of this House, and it will be carried also as an expression of opinion altogether and absolutely independent of any opinion, right or wrong, that may be entertained favourable or adverse to the continuance of the present Administration absolutely unchanged and unimpaired
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before I attempt to say anything in reply to one or two of the speeches which have lately been delivered I should like to recur for a moment to the suggestion made last night by the noble Marquess who leads the House—namely, that it is impossible for us who sit on this Bench to take a useful part in the discussion of some of these matters, and that for that reason it might have been desirable that this debate should be postponed to some other occasion. I have noticed that the suggestion thus made has been regarded in some quarters as indicating a desire on our part to evade the discussion of this subject. I can assure your Lordships that this is not the case. We are not so fatuous as to suppose that the recent events in Ireland will not have to be discussed, nor, if I may add it, are we such shabby fellows as to desire to elude discussion. We are convinced that what has lately happened in Ireland does call for discussion, and full discussion; but we also think that a really full discussion—by which I mean a discussion from which no part of the subject is excluded—is not possible under present conditions. I say that for this reason. The charges which have been made are levelled primarily at the Irish Executive. We have decided to institute an Inquiry into the conduct of that Executive; and in our view, until that Inquiry has taken place it would be not only difficult but improper for us to express an opinion upon points which will form the subject-matter of that Inquiry. It is for that reason and for that reason alone that we suggested that discussion might take place on some other occasion. But let me say once again that, far from desiring to stifle discussion, we admit that discussion is called for, and we are ready to take part in it.
The noble and learned Earl who placed this Motion upon the Paper asks your Lordships to record your "profound dissatisfac-

1017
tion with the administration of affairs in connection with the recent disorders in Ireland." If by that Motion the noble and learned Earl merely means that we regard these occurrences with the greatest indignation, if he merely means that the fact that these things have taken place is a proof that there is something rotten in the state of the country, if he merely means that some one is to be held accountable for what has taken place—I say if that is all that is meant I think I should be prepared to go into the Lobby with the noble and learned Earl. This abortive rebellion has to my mind been one of the most discreditable and humiliating episodes in the recent history of Ireland. It has involved loss of life and destruction of property, the loss of brave lives that ought not to have perished in such circumstances and the wrecking and disfigurement of the capital city of which every Irishman is proud. It has brought about a rekindling of the old embers of sedition ever present in Ireland. Worst of all it has been a stab in the back inflicted upon this country by citizens of this country beyond all doubt instigated by foreign intrigue, and, to some extent, at any rate, paid by the money of our enemies.
I noticed yesterday that there was a certain discrepancy between the importance attached to this outbreak by sonic noble Lords as compared with that attached to it by others. My noble friend Lord Bryce found consolation in the fact that upon this occasion the large majority of the people of Ireland had been on the side of law and order. Other noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Desart and others—took a graver view, and I confess that I myself am inclined to share that graver view. I do not think that anybody who has any knowledge of Ireland will contradict me when I say that it was only thanks to the prompt and successful action of the military that we escaped a disaster the extent of which it is impossible to conjecture. If this abortive rebellion had not miscarried at the outset, as it did, I am convinced that all over Ireland there would have flocked to the rebel standard numbers of those restless spirits who are to be found throughout that country, and who are sure to be found on the side of rebellion and outrage if the cause of rebellion and outrage happen to be in the ascendant. Fortunately, that did not come to pass, and we should be grateful for what we have escaped.
1018
I am not surprised at the impatience with which these events are regarded by your Lordships, or at your Lordships' desire that attention should be called to them. What is it, after all, that we all want? I think there is a certain amount of ground that is common to us all. In the first place, I venture to say that we all desire to find out where the responsibility for these events lies, and, in the second place, we all desire that measures should be taken to render a recurrence of them impossible; and, to my mind, of those two objects the second is very much the more important. The fall of a Minister may be pathetic or tragical, but it is a very small matter indeed compared with the protection of the unarmed people of Ireland, who are exposed to the kind of danger and the kind of risks through which they have been passing during the last few days. What matters most is that they should not be exposed to a recurrence of these troubles.
The noble and learned Earl's Motion is, in effect, a Motion of Censure, and on whom? It is a Motion of Censure upon two different bodies of persons—the Irish Executive and His Majesty's Government. I think it was my noble friend Lord Midleton who said that his attack was not intended to imply any direct censure upon His Majesty's Government, but no one who listened to his speech or to other speeches that have been delivered in this House can have any doubt that what was at the back of the minds of most of the speakers was that they desired to bring home the responsibility for these things not only to the Irish Executive but to the Ministers who form His Majesty's present advisers.
First let me say one word with regard to the part that has been played in these transactions by the Irish Executive. The head of the Irish Executive is the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary has, with a candour and straightforwardness to which more than one of your Lordships have borne witness, stated, in his place in the House of Commons, that he made an untrue estimate of the Sinn Fein movement. Mr. Birrell had a policy of his own—a policy which he knew involved the running of risks. He ran the risk; he admits the error which he committed, and he has resigned his office. I say that, as far as Mr. Birrell's attitude is concerned, nothing could be more correct than the attitude which he has taken; and he has, to my mind very properly, declined to attempt

1019
to vindicate himself pending the result of the Inquiry which is shortly to commence. Then there are the Lord Lieutenant, the Under-Secretary, and the minor officials, military and civil, of the Irish Government. The Lord Lieutenant and the Under-Secretary have both resigned. They and their subordinates must await the investigation of their conduct, and I suggest that so far as they are concerned it is quite impossible for us at this moment to pronounce an opinion upon the extent of their responsibility.
I have noticed that more than one speaker raised a question as to the propriety of the appointment of this Commission of Investigation. Surely we all desire to sift the facts, and to know what they really amount to. How is it possible that the facts can be sifted without an investigation of this kind? If there is to be an Inquiry is it suggested that the Inquiry proposed is the wrong kind of Inquiry? It is an Inquiry by a very small body of men, carefully selected, of great reputation and eminence, and we are confident that their task, which will be undertaken at once, can be completed within a very narrow limit of time. My noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees last night suggested an objection to the appointment of Lord Hardinge as Chairman of the Commission. It was, if I remember rightly, something of this kind. There is likely, said the Lord Chairman, to be an Inquiry in regard to the conduct of the Mesopotamian Expedition; that Inquiry may raise the question of the conduct of the Government of India, and in that way Lord Hardinge may find himself put upon his defence. That seemed to the Lord Chairman a reason for not allowing Lord Hardinge to take part in Un Inquiry into the responsibility of others. I should have taken my noble friend's suggestion more seriously if he had taken it more seriously himself. But he went on to suggest that, as a precisely parallel case, Mr. Birrell might possibly be appointed to preside over an Inquiry into the conduct of the Mesopotamian Expedition, and that the whole thing would end in whitewashing all round—I think that was the expression he used. If my noble friend had reflected for a moment it would, I am sure, have occurred to him that a more ill-founded parallel could scarcely be conceived. Mr. Birrell is resigning the high office of Chief Secretary under circumstances painful to him and to all his friends. Lord
1020
Hardinge has just laid down the Viceroyalty of India at the end of a term of office—which was, I think, prolonged by the Home Government—covered with distinction, and with a record absolutely and entirely untarnished. The Papers with regard to the Mesopotamian Expedition have not yet been laid before Parliament; and it is rather early in the day to start with the assumption that Lord Hardinge is likely to be put upon his trial, or that he is likely to be found guilty of mismanagement in connection with that affair. At any rate, I think I may suggest to the House that in the meanwhile it would be ridiculous that the country should be deprived of the valuable assistance which Lord Hardinge is able to give in connection with this most important Inquiry.
We were asked last night whether this was to be an open or a secret Inquiry. That is, I think, a matter which must be left to the decision of the Court itself; but it naturally occurs to one that a great deal of the evidence which is likely to be taken by this Commission is evidence which could not well, for very obvious reasons, be given in open Court. The Reference to the Commission, about which we were interrogated last night, runs thus—
"To inquire into the causes of the recent outbreak of rebellion in Ireland and into the conduct and degree of responsibility of the civil and military Executive in Ireland in connection therewith."
I think your Lordships will agree that those terms are sufficiently wide to give the Commission all the scope that it could possibly desire.
Now may I pass from the Irish Executive to His Majesty's Government, at which it is obvious that this charge is in the main directed. I am certainly not here to question the right of the noble and learned Earl or of any one else to put us upon our defence in connection with these occurrences. I have always in this House insisted upon the joint responsibility of the Cabinet in all cases where the conduct of a Minister was called in question. I was therefore rather sorry when it was suggested, as it was, that we were attempting to make a scapegoat of Mr. Birrell. I do not think that is a fair way of putting it. The Chief Secretary resigned of his own motion; and as for ourselves, when the facts are established we are quite ready to submit to trial upon them. But surely the first thing is to find out what really has happened, and how and when it happened;

1021
and when your Lordships are in possession of the full facts then by all means, if you see your way to inculpating us, let us have a direct censure of our conduct and let us meet it as best we can in this House. But I venture to suggest in the meanwhile that if the late Chief Secretary himself formed what he called a mistaken estimate of the danger of the Sinn Fein movement it is only fair to suppose that that was the estimate which was communicated to his colleagues in the Cabinet, who naturally would look, as all Cabinet Ministers do, for guidance to the particular Minister who is entrusted with the Department of the Government which is involved.
It may be said that there were other sources of information open to us. So there were. We have had a very interesting chapter of information from my noble friend Lord Midleton. Your Lordships will remember that, on the 26th of last month, my noble friend asked me some questions as to the position of affairs in Ireland. I answered them, after obtaining from the Irish Office such information as they were able to give me. That information was to the effect that, although the Irish Government were aware of the activities of the Sinn Fein movement, they had not received any warning which would have indicated to them the possibility or the probability of an immediately impending outbreak. In fairness to my noble friend I am bound to say that the information which he subsequently gave me fully convinced me that he had, as he told your Lordships last night, not upon one occasion but upon several occasions, approached members of the Irish Government and put before them the very serious view which he took of the position of affairs in Ireland. But, after reading the memorandum with which my noble friend kindly supplied me and after listening to his speech last night, there are two reflections which certainly occur to my mind. One of them is this. If, as was the case, my noble friend knocked at the door of the Lord Lieutenant, of the Chief Secretary, and of the Under-Secretary, and found that he was quite unable to make any impression upon those high officials, might it not have occurred to him that he would have done a public service by coming to some of us, members of the Government, and telling us what was happening and what his apprehensions were? My noble friend has never, I am sure, found me unapproachable in such
1022
matters, and he will remember that amongst my colleagues are two ex-Chief Secretaries with, each in his way, unrivalled knowledge and experience of Ireland.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I thought I had made it quite clear that after the failure with the Chief Secretary I had gone to the head of the Government, the Prime Minister. And I am obliged to say, in deference to the noble Marquess, that on other occasions when I addressed myself to members of the Government on other subjects I found that unless I could carry the Departmental Chief or the Prime Minister I was unable to get anything done.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It may be that the noble Viscount bad tried on other occasions and had failed. But, considering the gravity of this case, if my noble friend knew that we were on the brink of a volcano which might come into eruption at any moment, had I been in his place I should most certainly have come to my old colleagues and imparted to them the information I had been able to procure. My noble friend has an exceptional knowledge of Irish affairs. He is an experienced official, and in this case, according to what he told us last night, he was acting as the representative of a small body in close touch with the inner affairs of a part of Ireland. He therefore was in a position to come with a great deal more than ordinary authority. My noble friend says that on one occasion he mentioned this matter to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister, I believe, on that occasion—very naturally—asked my noble friend to lay his information before the Chief Secretary, and my noble friend did so, and apparently did not succeed. I remain of opinion that my noble friend might have come to us in connection with this affair. But I go further. If my noble friend was unable to get the encouragement which he desired from these officials, if he had not sufficient confidence in us to come to us and tell us what was happening, ought be not as a matter of public duty to have brought the question forward in Parliament? Not only did my noble friend do nothing of the kind, but I believe I am right in saying that ever since the Coalition Government was formed there has not been one single occasion on which a noble Lord has brought forward the condition of Ireland as a subject for discussion in this House. I say that my noble friend neglected not one opportunity but two

1023
opportunities which were open to him, and if he associates himself with those who accuse us of pursuing a policy of secrecy and silence, I am afraid I must tell my noble friend that in this particular episode he was infected with the same virus. I have no desire, I need not say, to pursue an argument with my noble friend, with whom I have acted so long and so intimately.
I pass to a part of the subject which I think can be, perhaps, more usefully discussed. During the course of this debate we have been pressed more than once to state our intentions with regard to certain questions of future policy. We have been asked, to begin with, whether we were not prepared to repeal what is known as the "Parmoor clause," the clause which is known by the name of the noble and learned Lord opposite, under which, in the case of trials for certain offences, the accused person can claim trial by jury instead of trial by Court Martial. This matter is certainly being considered. But I am under the impression—and I think Lord Lorehurn took the point yesterday—that in spite of the Parmoor clause there are provisions in the Defence of the Realm Act under which certain offences can be tried without a jury.
EARL LOREBURN: The state of timings, I think, is this. The clause which the noble Marquess calls the "Parmoor clause" does not apply at all if the Government choose to issue a Proclamation.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, that is it.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I might say a word. The clause in question contains, as the noble and learned Earl has said, perfect protection, because by Proclamation you can bring back the old conditions of the Defence of the Realm Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: At any rate we realise that, in certain cases of this kind, trial by jury is not an appropriate mode of trying the offence; and, whether by the repeal of the clause associated with the name of the noble and learned Lord or otherwise, we shall see to it that this point is properly dealt with.
Then we were asked whether we would undertake that for the future no known Sinn Feiner should be employed in Government Offices. We intend to provide that
1024
members of the Sinn Fein Society shall not be employed in any Government Department. How this is to be done I am not able to say at present, but one suggestion that is made is that every member of the Civil Service should be required to take the oath of allegiance, and that certainly would be one way of arriving at the object in view.
Several noble Lords expressed the hope that, while no undue severity would be shown to those who might be described as dupes in this movement, on the other hand, none of those who have been guilty of murder should be allowed to escape the death penalty merely because they had taken life while the rebellion was in progress. I am able to state that in all eases where life has been taken in circumstances which would have made the offence one of murder in ordinary times, the course of the law will certainly not be interfered with.
Questions were asked with regard to the steps which we might take as
to the possession of arms by people of all sorts in Ireland. I am not able to give your Lordships precise details as to what is intended, but I am able to say that there is no intention of allowing the continuance of a state of things under which every one who can procure a weapon is allowed to retain it without licence or permission and to exhibit it where and when he pleases. The precise proposals, which of course very intimately touch the whole question of the position of the Volunteers in Ireland, are under examination, and we shall, I hope, soon be able to announce our intentions.
An appeal was made to us that Martial Law should be allowed to remain in force for the present. I think one suggestion was that it should be allowed to remain in force until the whole of the arms now scattered throughout the country had been collected. When we talk about Martial Law it is sometimes forgotten that when Martial Law prevails it is not that you are substituting for the ordinary law of the land some alternative Code of law; what happens is that the ordinary law disappears, and that the supreme control passes into the hands of the military. That is obviously a condition of things which can only be permitted in times of great emergency; and when the emergency ceases the necessity for Martial Law disappears with it. No one can, I think, say in the case of Ireland that the emergency

1025
has yet disappeared, and Martial Law certainly will not be abrogated until we are satisfied that it can be abrogated with entire safety. Meanwhile Sir John Maxwell remains in supreme control: and I am glad to take this opportunity of paying my humble tribute of respect to the skill, courage, and tact with which he has carried through a task of the greatest difficulty and delicacy. He enjoys the full and unabated confidence of His Majesty's Government. He will retain his powers for the present, and he is not likely to advise that they are no longer necessary until he is absolutely convinced by the frets that that is the case.
I may perhaps take this opportunity of mentioning one, other item of information which is perhaps riot without interest. It is the Prime Minister's intention to visit Ireland for a short time. He leaves London this evening. I need not say that he does not go in order to anticipate the result of Lord Hardinge's Inquiry, still less for the purpose of interfering with the authority of John Maxwell; but being, as he is, deeply convinced of the gravity of the situation, he desires by a personal visit and intercourse with those in authority to make himself fully aware of the circumstances of the case.
I will not trouble your Lordships longer. We shall no doubt have other opportunities, probably many, of discussing the case of Ireland, and after the inquiry which we are instituting has taken place we shall be in a better position than we are this evening to attribute responsibility. Meanwhile, my noble friends who sit by me feel that it would be impossible for us to associate ourselves with anything like a Vote of Censure upon the Irish Executive; but. I hope we have said enough to show that we do not fail to realise the gravity of the ease, and that we are fully determined that the, measures which we take in order to meet it shall not be lacking either in courage cu in efficacy.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess that I rise with a sense of great disappointment after the speech of the noble Marquess, under whom I have served and for whom I have the greatest possible respect. I cannot help saying that I think the whole question which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Loreburn has been evaded by the speech to which we have just listened. What one would like to know is
1026
how much the Government knew of what was going on in Ireland, and whether they did or did not approve of the Chief Secretary's policy. Upon that subject we have heard nothing. If it has been omitted by mistake, we pause with great pleasure for an answer. What I think the House is anxious to know is what has been the policy of the Cabinet, and whether when the policy of the Chief Secretary was known it was approved by the Cabinet. What have we heard? We have heard of the marshalling of armed nun and of a sort of imitation rebellion in the streets of Dublin. Was that known to the Cabinet, and if it was known to the Cabinet did they approve or disapprove of the Chief Secretary's policy in allowing such sedition to grow until the end came?
I confess for myself that I do not understand the plea for delay which the noble Marquess has put forward. Why cannot we discuss now the conduct of the Cabinet? I think it was the noble Marquess who leads the I House who said last night, and said quite accurately, that the question of Cabinet action is not one for Committees but is a question for Parliament. If so, why have we not some further information of what was before the Cabinet themselves? We heard from Lord Midleton the efforts that he made in this matter, and, if I gather rightly, what the noble Marquess is disposed to say is that he ought to have been more insistent than he was, and that when he was referred to the Chief Secretary and received the answer that he did he ought to have insisted on seeing the Prime Minister. That is not practicable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He did see the Prime Minister.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Then I want to know what was done, what the Cabinet thought proper to do about Ireland. If they knew what vas going on, did they permit it to continue without interference? Did they permit sedition to grow into high treason, or did they "wait and see"? That is the question I think the House would like to determine. And if the Cabinet did know what was going on and permitted it to continue then I should like to know whether anybody who has a conscience can possibly refuse to agree to the language in which my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn has expressed the view which would be entertained by any deliberative Assembly upon such conduct by a Govern-

1027
ment. One would suppose from what has been said that because a particular member of the Cabinet was more particularly charged with the government of Ireland, that excused the whole of the Government from responsibility. Did they or did they not know what was going on in Ireland? That is not a question of last week or a month ago. There are few of us who have Irish friends who have not from time to time spoken in terms of very great severity of the conduct of the Government in allowing these seditious meetings, seditious speeches, and seditious publications to go on in Ireland unchecked.
To my mind it was an extraordinary thing, after the accusations that have been made and after what has happened, that the noble Marquess who leads the House said not one word in his speech last night in defence of the Government, not one syllable. Nor did I understand the noble Marquess who has just sat down to defend the course that has been pursued. And if not, why not? Nothing has been said. If the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will forgive me for saving so, I thought his allusion to what had been said by the Lord Chairman of Committees was a piece of very adroit advocacy, but it really had nothing to do with this question, yet it occupied a considerable portion of the noble Marquess's reply. The Government are at this moment upon their trial. Why do not they answer? Why do not the Government tell us whether it was right or wrong to allow this thing to grow as it has grown? All that has been said by way of defence is that the Executive Government are to be tried and further information is to be obtained. That is the old story—delay, delay, delay ! What we want to know is, What advice did the Government give to the Chief Secretary? Did they speak to him on the subject? Was this the subject of debate or not, and was it deliberately allowed or not?
It is all very well to treat with generosity a fallen Minister, but that is not the point we are upon at present. I do not understand the effusive compliments paid to Mr. Birrell. The question is not whether he was properly asked to resign or did of himself resign, but whether or not His Majesty's Government, with a full knowledge of what was going on in Ireland, permitted the sedition to grow to the extent that it has done. It is all very well to
1028
say "Wait and see." We have waited and we have seen—Dublin in ruins, and murder and sedition and high treason rampant in Ireland. What do the Government when arraigned for that condition of things say "We must have a Committee. We must have an Inquiry of another sort. Do not put us on our trial at this moment because we want further information upon which we can act." The House desires to know what information the Government had, what information they acted upon, and whether they allowed the Chief Secretary to do that which has caused calamities the consequences of which will be very long indeed before they fade.
LORD MACDONNELL: My Lords, I should like to place a few considerations before the House with the object of endeavouring to persuade your Lordships not to accept Lord Loreburn's Motion. The noble and learned Earl began his speech by reminding the House that—
"Before the war there were acute differences between your Lordships and those outside in regard to Irish policy. I do not propose to say a single word to revive any of those unhappy controversies. The Sinn Fein organisation, which is responsible for the recent outbreak, is outside the pale of political parties."
Pursuing the same line of argument the noble Viscount on the Front Bench opposite, also desirous of limiting the discussion, told us that he believed the starting point of the Sinn Fein trouble was the conduct of the Government in connection with the landing of arms at Howth on July 26, 1914. In my judgment the noble and learned Earl gave a somewhat imperfect diagnosis of the evils which have befallen Ireland, and the noble Viscount has given an imperfect account of the genesis of those evils.
I hope the noble Viscount will pardon me if I say that any attempt to dissociate the event of the landing of arms at Howth from that of the landing of arms at Larne some time before is an impossible attitude to take up. The landing of arms at Howth was the logical sequence of the landing of arms at Larne, and the meaning of the Howth. episode cannot be understood apart from the Larne episode. I go the length of saying that tile rebels who shot down His Majesty's soldiers in the streets of Dublin last week were different from the persons who held up His Majesty's police and Customs officers at Larne only in the fact that they

1029
went so far. Had the police and Customs officers at Larne resisted they also would have been shot down. Therefore if we enter upon an inquiry it is quite impossible to limit it in the way which the noble Lord attempted to do.
In the same way we cannot exclude the Sinn Feiners from the list of Irish political parties, as the noble and learned Earl did. The Sinn Feiners came into prominent notice about the year 1907. The noble and gallant Admiral, Lord Beresford, told your Lordships of the gradual exacerbation of political feeling in Ireland, ending in tile Sinn Fein movement. The Sinn Fein movement arose about the time when Ireland was, according to the noble and gallant Lord, more peaceful than it had been for 600 years. That statement was made by Mr. Birrell when he succeeded to the Chief Secretaryship. He came after live years of peaceful and effective administration. The peaceful condition of Ireland then was due to the operation of Mr. Wyndham's Land Act; it was due to the hopes which were gradually gathering in Ireland that a reasonable measure of Home Rule might be obtained; it was due also to the hope that a reasonable measure of University reform might be secured. I do not say what I am going to say with any disrespect to Mr. Birrell, but I say that I think it was a capital misfortune for Ireland that Mr. Bryce (as he then was) was removed from the Chief Secretaryship. No doubt the Empire has been the gainer, but Ireland has been the loser.
Now how are you to judge the Government if the growth and the deterioration of the Sinn Fein movement is not first examined into? The Sinn Fein movement in its origin was not a disloyal movement—it was more of a literary character; but it came under the influence of the notorious agitator named Larkin, who in the year 1907 reduced Belfast almost to the state that Dublin was in before the conflagration. Larkin's action was followed by similar scenes in Cork and in Wexford, where disputes and unrest during the recent troubles have also arisen. If you trace the rebel movement you will find that where it acquired vitality the way had been prepared for it by the socialistic action of Larkin and his colleague Connolly. You cannot form any just appreciation of the difficulties of the Irish Government unless these matters are carefully inquired into, and unless the
1030
responsibility is properly allocated amongst the various parties and officials concerned.
I believe that the state of Ireland at the present time is very different from what it was at any previous insurrection, very different from what it was in 1798 and in the year 1867. I have been to Dublin and have gone amongst the people. I have seen the ruins of the central part of the City. I have seen the troops and the people mingling together in admirable relations. There was no sort of or sullenness on the part of the people, and there was courtesy on the part of the troops. Nobody that I spoke to had an evil word for the troops in regard to their operations in Ireland. I have heard it said during the debate to-night that outrages were perpetrated by the rebels. It is an extraordinary characteristic of this outbreak that outrages were not perpetrated by the rebels. Property of which they took possession was not interfered with. Where there was looting it was done by the people from the slums of Dublin, and I do not think any city in Europe can show slums of more sordid misery. This storm, in m opinion, will pass over, and will leave no lasting trace upon the country. I have heard it said this evening that were it not for the miscalculations of the leaders of this movement it would have assumed a much larger and much more serious character. I have not been able myself to go into the country districts, but during my short visit to Dublin I saw people from many parts of Ireland. The universal opinion was that no damage was done beyond the shooting of the police where opposition was offered.
I do not think that there can be any advantage from such a vote as your Lordships are asked to record to-night. If it comes to pass that the vote which you record to-night is not supported by the finding of the Commission, your Lordships' House will stand in a false position. There is no reason why you should proceed to execution before you pass judgment, and you cannot pass judgment until you have the facts before you. You will be anticipating the finding of this Commission if you act to-night upon the invitation of the noble and learned Earl. I think that hasty action on your Lordships' part will have a bad effect upon Ireland generally, and, for my own part, I certainly will not vote with the noble and learned Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, must feel that he has been, by the course of this debate, abundantly justified in the action which he took. As the debate proceeded I venture to think there was hardly a member of your Lordships' House who did not realise that such a discussion was eminently called for. This evening the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite (Lord Charnwood), who spoke as a Home Ruler, declared that the debate was of great public value; indeed, I can bring an even more important witness than the noble Lord, because my noble friend Lord Lansdowne addressed your Lordships in terms of the greatest gravity when he spoke of the condition of affairs in Ireland.
The noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if, at this period of the debate, I do not follow him, as I should have wished, in all his observations, which were in the direction of minimising the condition of things in Ireland. But if the noble Lord takes that line, I call as a witness on the other side my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, who said that there had been differences of opinion as to the gravity of affairs in Ireland, some people thinking them less and some more grave, but stated that he, the noble Marquess—who has access to all the official information, which I suppose at last has been communicated to the Cabinet—considered that it was almost impossible to exaggerate their gravity. I think, therefore, that we are at liberty to conclude that but for a fortunate accident, or very little more than that, the rebellion, instead of being confined to Dublin and a few provincial centres, would have extended throughout the length and breadth of the South and West of Ireland. It is not necessary to say anything more to justify this debate. We were in the presence not only of a most dangerous occurrence, but of what might have been an absolute catastrophe.
My noble friend asked just now what was the precise meaning of this Resolution which the noble and learned Earl opposite is submitting to the house. In the first place, its meaning lies upon its surface. We are asked to express our profound dissatisfaction with the administration of affairs in Ireland. There are no two opinions about it. Every single member of the House, including the noble Marquess who leads it—although he did not seem to show a deep sense of it last night—is
1032
profoundly dissatisfied with the administration of affairs in Ireland. We are really pronouncing what ought to be passed unanimously. My noble friend asked who it is we contemplate as responsible for the condition of affairs in Ireland. Of course, we contemplate the Irish Government as responsible in the first instance. But are they alone responsible? Is the blame of what has occurred in Ireland to be attributed to the Irish Government and the Irish Government alone? It is clear that a certain measure of responsibility falls on all the members of the Government.
I do not venture to criticise severely the ordinary members of the Government. I do not suppose they knew very Much about Ireland. Certainly I do not criticise those members who belong to the Party of which I have the honour to be a member. I should think that probably now they wish they had joined the Coalition on rather different terms from those on which they did join it. The Government of that day was in the last degree feeble; it had lost its power of control. The members of the then Government came to noble Lords on this side of the House and to right hon. gentlemen on our side in the House of Commons and asked them to help them. With the greatest self-sacrifice they did go to help them, but they seem to have accepted the state of things all standing, as it were. All they did was to go in and help the Government to get the war through, and one admires them for it. But one of the things they seem to have accepted all standing was Mr. Birrell and Mr. Birrell's Government. It has been a crying scandal for years, everybody knows it, and no amount of sympathy with Mr. Birrell now—and we all feel sympathy with him—ought to prevent us speaking the truth. The government of Ireland has been abominable. Who was responsible for Mr. Birrell being Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? My noble friend Lord Lansdowne challenged the noble Viscount who sits beside me (Lord Midleton) to mention any other member of the Government outside the Irish Government to whom he had related the circumstances or any of them which he detailed with such force to your Lordships' House last night. I think my noble friend, if I may venture to say so, must be a little sorry now for that challenge, because he forced my noble friend to rise and tell your Lordships and the country that the Minister whom he had informed,

1033
and who therefore knew, was no less a person than the Prime Minister himself.
We cannot shrink from this discussion and from the necessary and natural sequel to this discussion. After all, we have a great responsibility, a very heavy responsibility. The noble Marquess who leads the House deprecated last night an observation of the noble and learned Earl that he thought the abstention from criticism had been carried too far in Parliament. I did not agree, if the noble and learned Earl will allow me to say so, with everything he said last night. But I agree emphatically with that. I believe that this abstention from all criticism has been a profound mistake. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House dues not think so. He told us the old thing about the advantage that might be derived by the enemy. There is not a member of your Lordships' House who is ever going to say anything in Parliament which could be of advantage to the enemy. But we cannot approach the subject of criticism from the same point of view as it was approached in 1911 and in the early part of 1915. We have tried what comes of an abstention from criticism, and we have seen blunder after blunder. We do not want to be vindictive. Your Lordships sitting in different parts of the House have all of you most intimate political friends sitting on the Government Bench. But unless we say what we think we shall bear part of the responsibility for what occurs. The same hands which allowed Mr. Churchill to gamble with the British Empire in the Dardanelles, the same hands which allowed Mr. Birrell to produce a rebellion in Ireland, are still in power. What we desire to do is in the most solemn fashion possible to your Lordships' House once again to warn the Government that there must be a change—I mean a change in method.
We have not come to the end of difficult questions. I see a vista in front of us—difficult questions about tonnage, difficult questions, vital questions, about finance, and other questions which must occur to every one of your Lordships in regard to the conduct of the war which it is better not to particularise. But even with regard to Ireland this debate to-night and last night may, I venture to think, be pregnant with good consequences. We have had a most satisfactory assurance from the noble Marquess opposite as to the immediate future of the Government in Ireland—and may I say to my noble friend how much I
1034
admire the chivalry with which he undertook the defence of the Government tonight. My noble friend told us that in the future everything would be set right, and all sorts of good things would be done. I hope it is not uncharitable of me to express a doubt whether we should have had anything like that speech if it had not been for the debate last night?
There are other things. There is the appointment of a Chief Secretary and of a Lord Lieutenant. If you want vigorous administration in. Ireland, by which I do not mean vindictive administration—I mean vigorous and adequate administration—then your Lordships must pronounce when things have been badly done in order to prevent a recurrence of the mistakes. Your Lordships' House is pre-eminently a house of judges. It is your business to pronounce. You cannot shirk that duty unless you will bear part of the responsibility of the mistakes which the Government may hereafter make. Speak now while there is yet time. Say, as the noble and learned Earl has said in his speech and as my noble friend beside me has said—say, as we ask you to say in the Lobby, that we utterly condemn the recent administration of affairs in Ireland, and you will deserve well of your country.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Earl who moved the Resolution is going to divide the House, but if he does I shall without hesitation go into the Lobby with him, and I should like to say, in a few words, why I shall do so. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, appeared to be in some doubt as to what the noble and learned Earl meant by his Resolution. I think he explained pretty clearly himself what he meant. Anyhow, that rests with him. I have not the slightest doubt as to what I shall mean when I vote with the noble and learned Earl. I shall mean profound dissatisfaction, not merely with the inaction of the last few months, but with the whole nerveless administration of Ireland for the last nine years, which has at last culminated in this fearful disorder. I am not one of those—if there are any such, and I do not think there are, in this House—who have any desire lurking at the back of their minds to imperil the existence of the present Government, much as I disliked the for-illation of the Coalition Ministry. At the same time, I am clearly of opinion that the greatest chance of issuing victorious from

1035
the great struggle in which we are now engaged is that every one to the best of his ability should afford support to the present Ministry. I would like to go one step further and to say that, in my opinion, in spite of the numerous blunders and, mistakes that have been committed, I very much doubt whether any other living Ministers could have secured the same unanimity of action in all Parties as has been secured under the régime of the present Prime Minister.
But a desire to give a general support to the Ministry does not in any way preclude legitimate and reasonable criticism, and assuredly if ever there was a case for reasonable criticism it is this. I do not suppose that any one who has been in a responsible position himself and knows how very difficult it is to make an accurate political forecast and how easy it is to go wrong is likely to be a very harsh or uncompromising critic. But there are mistakes and mistakes. There are some mistakes which are excusable and comprehensible, and there are others which are absolutely inexcusable and incomprehensible; and assuredly the mistakes made in regard to Ireland come within the latter category. It is all very well for Mr. Birrell now to stand in a white sheet and, in a speech of which we all recognise the pathos and dignity, to say that he has made a grievous blunder—though I do not think those were the precise words. I cannot help thinking of what the Roman Emperor Augustus said after his defeat by the Germans. He said in his agony, "Varus, give me back my legions." I think we have a perfect right to say to Mr. Birrell, "Give us back the lives, the priceless lives, of those gallant young officers and men who have been sacrificed by your neglect of duty, by your want of foresight, by your culpable optimism."
There never was a more senseless or more unjustifiable rebellion than this Sinn Fein movement in the course of history. Even those who have most ardently advocated the sacred right of rebellion generally tempered their advocacy by the reflection that rebellion is quite unjustifiable unless there is some hope of success. In this case there never was the smallest hope of success. It was doomed to failure from the very commencement. It relied entirely upon foreign assistance, and it must have been perfectly well known to all the leaders of the rebellion that, owing to the vigilance of the British Fleet, this assistance could not be
1036
afforded. I do not know if there is anything more remarkable in the whole of this war in reference to German action than the fact that, in spite of the very great ability of the German rulers and their high organising power, whenever it has come to a big issue in politics, whenever it has come to estimating the motives which would guide large bodies of men, the German Government have been invariably wrong. They were wrong in their appreciation of the strength of the bonds that unite the Colonies and the Mother Country, they were wrong about India, they were wrong about Egypt, they were wrong about the support they would receive from Italy, they have been wrong with regard to the feelings of America, they were wrong in the first instance in Ireland when they thought there would be a Civil War, and now they have committed a final mistake. Yet if they had read history to any purpose they might have escaped this blunder. The noble Viscount (Lord Bryce), who spoke last night, alluded to a former attempt of this nature which had been made when Hoche landed in Ireland at a time when the enemy Fleet still held the seas and there was an amount of discontent in the country. That and all other attempts failed, and so every further attempt will assuredly fail. Why have they failed? The reason is that, in spite of discontent and disunion and a certain amount of sedition, the real feeling of the great mass of the Irish people is that they do not want the connection with England to be permanently severed. Surely the Government, and particularly the Chief Secretary for Ireland, ought to have taken measures betimes to guard against what was taking place and to have listened to the warnings given. But as they have not done so, I think it is not only an obligation but the bounden duty of your Lordships' House to express your opinion and strongly to condemn the recent conduct of the Government in Ireland.
On Question, Whether to agree with the said Resolution, resolved in the affirmative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next, May 16.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.